Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG
I run the next to latest full release, which is like build 2880 or 1.3.23b of version 3. I still have a few v2 cpe left not upgraded, somewhere in the half dozen range, probably. I have a few running the very latest release, because of it's higher throughput, but it has bugs and have elected not to use it widely until the features are fully implemented and some bugs squashed. a single point to point 11b throgh a bullet will hit 650KB, but compressible data through a staros cpe will easily exceed 1400. - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG I havent seen that but I've only got a few StarOS CPE units out there. What version are you running? I'm still on V2 for Customer APs. Just started upgrading to V3 for Backhauls. -RickG On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, readerrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I, too, run Star-OS, and the bullet 2's are approximately 50% of the throughput of a staros based cpe when in 11b mode. Star-OS has other helpful things like managed mode, and the signal level settings. I use bullet 2's only when I absolutely have to, due to this. Star-OS ap to cpe will endure high levels of interference and multipath, without packet loss, but not a bullet. On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:32:28 -0400, RickG wrote Mark, It appears that is correct. I also run StarOS AP's. Interesting though, I have not seen any performance differences between the units with ff comp and those that dont support it. I wonder if its just something you cant view? -RickG On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Mark Nashmarkl...@uwol.net wrote: According to Ubiquiti, these DO support ff comp: Nanostation 5 Nanostation Loco 5 Bullet 2 HP Picostation 2 HP All powerstations All others do not, including: Nanostation 2 Nanostation Loco 2 Bullet 2 (non-HP...WTF???) Bullet5 Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: ralph ralphli...@bsrg.org To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG I know that with DDWRT, you have to pay for the license and you get a key. Not sure about OpenWRT. I don't recall any current UBNT I have used that did not support ff and comp. I have used most, except for the newest that just came out. Ralph -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG It appears that only SOME of the Ubiquiti products enable compression fast frames, some don't. Is this accurate? Any success stories using the WRT firmware on these products? It seems that the hardware is capable, just hasn't been enabled in the firmware unless you purchase the higher end, more expensive products. This seems to be the ONLY thing keeping me from using these products in a big way as opposed to what I use now, StarOS. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance I went to email him, but his website says he will not respond to emails from outside his district. his website has no mention of his letter to the FCC. Is there anyone in his district on-list who can email or call him? People from outside his district are obviously going to be far back on the list of things to take time to deal with. I won't call unless there's nobody in his district. I did a lot of searching for additional information about his request, but I found nothing. I did find he has a lot of interest in internet / telecommunications, though I see he and I are on the opposite sides of a lot of things. His district is the upper peninsula of Michigan. Anyone? I'd like to hear the FCC response to Rep. Bart Stupak's request to waive the CALEA regulations for small broadband providers, as described in the following link. http://www.wispa.org/?p=21 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup
People have been saying this for quite some time. There's a lot of people who have been deploying star-os and mt based gear with the assumption that at a future date would come some minor regulatory changes that would let them certify stuff already out. The new modular transmitter rules may provide this means, if someone can get some clarity about the legalese in the published rule changes - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup Can the Certification Nazis give it a rest for a couple of months? There will be plenty of StarOS and MT certified systems by then and we can send these stupid threads into /dev/null oblivion. Sheesh. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Chadd Thompson wrote: You want to help the guy or poke him with a stick? :O) Chadd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup Ty, I assume you are planning to use certified gear for this. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ty Carter Lightwave Communications wrote: Anyone out there willing to throw a helping hand to me in setting up a MT hotspot I have tried several times; and just can not get it to function as I think it is prescribed to function... i.e. can't get it to work... doa. I will be glad to call whomever for assistancePlease shoot me a contact number off-list and I will be glad to discuss this in detail. -- Regards, Ty Carter, President Strategic Network Consultants, Inc. 524 East 9th Street Washington, NC 27889 252-946-0351 .::. Office 252-402-5296 .::. Cell 252-946-8763 .::. Fax E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit us on the web at: http://www.strategicconsultants.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
Prior to CALEA, my plan for helping law enforcement consisted of the following... Introducing them to my upstream (they'd already know them anyway, because my netblocks belong to them) and having them use my provider's nice, secure NOC for tapping into my upstream traffic via a managed switch and mirroring. I have no place to put a mediation box, no place to put any kind of physical tap. I have no physical point this can be done, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF MY NETWORK. Physically, it has to be located at someone else's facility. This is not compliant. And one says why are you stressing? Ok, how many of you have dealt with the IRS? How about electrical codes? Building codes? OSHA? Saying that the feds just want the data is just like saying the IRS just wants some money. Wrong. They want absolute compliance, to the letter. When we had to dispose of solvents and cleaners, we went many rounds with the DEQ for Oregon. There was no accomplish this goal, it was obey the letter, period. Great solutions were not allowed, because they didn't fit the absolute letter. Welcome to the world of regulatory hell. Conversations with people in DC are one thing. They will present as a nice of face as possible to disarm you. The IRS people are pleasant... at first.. too.So was the DEQ. Oh, we don't want to fine you, just get you into compliance, but the moment we talked to them, we had to immediately do what they demanded, or face fines. For instance, we had to clean some parts in something like carb cleaner. It is washed off with high pressure hot water. That means that it, and the water you wash it off with... is hazardous waste. So, limits on the disposal of hazardous waste? Well, we had a gallon limit. So, we said, we buy 20 gallons a year, does this mean we generate 20 gallons of waste? The answer was no. Every gallon of water used to rinse it off became another measured gallon. They told us that the preferred method of disposal was to evaporate the carb cleaner. So, we said great... we'll just rinse it off with water and evaporate the water and cleaner. Nope. if we rinse it with water, then that water counts toward hazardous waste gallons. Stupid, eh? No matter how much water we used, we were still evaporating 20 gallons of this solvent. But the evaporated water was 'hazardous waste and if we mixed too much water in this, we went over the gallon limit. Read the document... They will read your filings, and then they will start on a process of bringing you into compliance. Tapping at your gateway? That's fine. That's good faith to start. Then you will have to demonstrate contined progress toward compliance. Dont' have 24 hour response? That's fine. You will only need to say WHEN you'll have it. You WILL eventually have to capture it at the client end, or at the AP if you're wireless. You WILL provide a date when this will happen. I hate to say it, but it sounds like some very gullible people talked to the feds. They're not the ones who will be reading the forms and assessing fines. They are there to put a nice face on things. But compliance, to the letter? That's what the name of the game is. Always will be. Always has been. What has to be gotten across, is that some technologies do not work this way. They will have to make a definitive statement ( the calea faq is woefully out of date - www.askcalea.net , with contradictory information published later) . I quote: The primary goal of the Order is to ensure that Law Enforcement Agencies have all of the resources that CALEA authorizes with regard to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers (ISP) and interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) providers. Not to do what you can but to get EVERYTHING they they are authorized to get. That's my opinion of how the future is going to play out, unless something changes between now and then. They make the statement that we don't intend to alter the way networks work. But when you read the way enforcement works.. You will. Just witness how many people are talking about fundamentally altering network operations to be compliant now. But more importantly... from this day forward, you will not be able to start, or deploy a wireless or any other kind of internet providing network that doesn't have ALL aspects of CALEA compatibility built in. That pretty much rules out the vast majority of present equipment and methods of deployment. - Original Message - From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI, why they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed pre-configured then we can install them when they are needed. It is highly unreasonable for the FBI to ask
[WISPA] Ok, here's my CALEA statement, and farewell.
I hereby declare that I am NOT a facilities based provider, since I do not have any physical point on my network that can be tapped, mirrored, probed, or otherwise possible to intercept. I have no equivalent to a switched network. There you have it. We're putting my network your mouth is, folks. Continually, there is the statement that nobody will be requied to change their network. We'll see how true to their word the government is. Trusting government's word is THE definition of ultimate stupidity, but I have no other choice. My prediction is that those statements are only words, and it will ultimately be proven a total lie. Now, I HAVE a suggestion for LE for how to get information, and I'll be happy to help them do it, but my particular network simply has NO possible mechanism. I have spent weeks trying to figure some possible way to meet the definition of compliance but it isn't possible. Of course, this is of no help to the poor people who now face serious financial issues. I regret that WISPA refuses to officially go to bat for them. For that matter, I regret wasting WISPA's time. You fine folks are now reading my last post to anything related to WISPA and on any WISPA list. When WISPA turned it's back on the small people, and started insisting that defending right and good was no longer allowed by a mature industry, defining mature as being absolutely blind to issues of right / wrong or even recognition that government is overreaching, it lost my support. When it became downright hostile to the interests of us as people, it set up itself as something I am hostile to as a matter of principle. As one of our forefathers said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Not just during speeches, not just as talking points during elections, but in EVERY aspect of our lives, be it religious, business, political, social, and educational. When hostility to the notion of defending ourselves against overreaching government is displayed for purposes of expedience or convenience or ingratiating ourselves with those in power, then I cannot in good conscience support or be associated. Sorry. If principle isn't worth defending and upholding, it's not principle, just public stances. I will never regret upholding principle, but I will certainly regret NOT. I have very much enjoyed some of the conversations over the many moons, the awesome character and generosity post Katrina displayed by so many, and some of the great people I've conversed with and some of the most fascinating and thought provoking discussions over the many months I have been here. A few years ago, I would have probably kept my mouth shut and just gone along. But no more. I have had more than enough. I decided that I will live, speak, and associate according to my best conscience. It applies even to my business and how I treat my customers. My first taste of this was when I turned down a job because it required me to violate my conscience. I was unemployed and utterly broke. Some thought me insane, but just days later I had a real job, with pay dramatically exceeding the one I turned down...and I got to live and work the highest ideals. Seriously, folks... It's been a fascinating ride, and I have no hostility to any of you, though we disagree or agree or dont' even understand each other. I'll be easy enough to find elsewhere... Just look for the fanaticly devoted wireless and freedom advocate, and I'll be there. Later, folks. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
You a HAM operator, Jack? - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Mark, Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques. This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a network that interferes with itself and with other networks. To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified systems from them. jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. See comment inline, near end of post. Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part 15 certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor receivers. jack Well, I should have been more clear. Yes, there are tests and certain limits. Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting. I'd like the best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, etc. Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers? -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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] was School WiFi , about technical values.
how does this work for the hundreds of guys who use stuff they created, becuase the manufacturers are miles behind in features, performance, and flexibility? - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Felix, I think motivating manufacturers is a simple as: 1. Asking them WHAT FCC certified systems they offer? 2. If the answer is none, ask them WHEN they expect to be offering certified systems? 3. If the answer is they have no plans then ask them WHY NOT and inform them that too much time and money have gone into building your WISP to risk losing it by being fined or shut down by the FCC. Ask them to advise you as soon as they have FCC certified systems available. jack Felix A. Lopez wrote: Jack - I would be interested in motivating the manufacturers. I work for a large manufacturer but plan to go to a smaller company becase I like working in focused delta team environment. But I can see how working with manufacturers can be helpful. Can you provide additional thoughts. Marlon - any suggestions on your part? Felix --- Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See comment inline, near end of post. Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ? Dawn DiPietro wrote: Mike, If you think you are under the radar you are sorely mistaken. You admitted on a public list that gear you use is not certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Yeah, but your over the limit! :) Heck why go after a 3000 little guys when you can go after one big guy. They've been selling unlicensed amplifiers and uncertified systems for as long as I can remember. Heck, talk about posting a message on this list, what about having a full blown catalog online advertizing US sales with prices next to them? I believe they should have spent the 3 or 4 g's to get the systems they sell certified before they sold them. They make millions easily selling uncertified gear and it's not a secret. Ohh, I feel another rant coming on.. .George, you better take a chill pill :) While this is a peripheral issue with certification, I have made suggestions to the FCC about certification of individual components.I kinda doubt it's going to happen. At least not soon, regulators are notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them. I buy computer components... motherboad, processors, video cards, and so on... And tires, and car parts, and actually quite a few other things that have technical performance reviews by people who have tested things. I WISH that manufacturers could certify components, because then we'd have published real-wolrd performance graphs and charts to use for comparison when we buy things. Just certified really isn't good enough in my view. I recall that a good number of years ago, there was a hack for a linksys AP that turned up the power. Someone used an SA on it and found that when you did it, the output became incredibly dirty. Certified or not, I would like to know that what I buy is clean rf-wise. Low OOB emissions. Minimal out of channel emissions, selective recievers that reject adjacent channel noise. Really comparable specs for dealing with noise and S/N ratios, etc. I really dislike not knowing those things about what I buy. And, due to the way certification works, certification has almost no meaning when it comes to those important RF characteristics. Early on in my investigating the wireless business, lots of people were testing new products and publishing the results. I dont' see ANY of that going on anymore. Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part 15 certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor receivers. jack Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers? -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives
Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
Then you know and understand the value of selectivity and what clean transmitters are. There's good enough to get certified, and then there's good and better and excellent and I'd like to see us have the information and be able to lean on the manufacturers to clean up their acts. There is a wide gulf between certifieable and very good.An aweful lot of manufacturers are playing the power race, which I don't like, I wish they were trying to complete on all the RF qualities of their equipment. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. I am a ham and I have been for 48 years. I've also held an FCC Commercial License for 28 years. Without my ham experience, I doubt that I would have been able to transition into the license-free wireless industry in 1993 - which was before any WISPs even existed. My years of ham experience made the transition relatively easy. I recommend that all WISP operators consider getting their ham licenses which, BTW no longer require any Morse Code tests. jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You a HAM operator, Jack? - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Mark, Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques. This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a network that interferes with itself and with other networks. To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified systems from them. jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. See comment inline, near end of post. Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part 15 certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor receivers. jack Well, I should have been more clear. Yes, there are tests and certain limits. Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting. I'd like the best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, etc. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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] was School WiFi , about technical values.
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Mark, I'm going to reply but this will be my last reply on this subject. I don't want to exceed my 5 posts per day limit any more than necessary. :) Yes, I understand about receiver selectivity. I've also taught over 2000 WISP personnel about it since 2001. I also wrote a (vendor-neutral) book about proper broadband wireless network design and deployment. The book has a heavy emphasis on explaining how wireless works. One entire chapter is devoted to evaluating and selecting wireless equipment. I do think it's beyond the role and beyond the budget of the FCC to be able to certify equipment as good enough, better, best, etc. Agreed. It's the job of the intelligent WISP owner/operator to learn how wireless propagation works and how wireless equipment works. Then the WISP operator can make their own determination about what equipment is best to achieve their particular wireless goals in their particular wireless environment. We can only do this if we can find a way to get the makers to provide us with more information than they do at present. We have power and sensitivity specs, and that's about it. There's a whole lot more to it than that, though. Sadly, without us demanding it, we'll never get it, and too few people have any idea what to ask for, much less evaluate what it means. Have a good night, jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Then you know and understand the value of selectivity and what clean transmitters are. There's good enough to get certified, and then there's good and better and excellent and I'd like to see us have the information and be able to lean on the manufacturers to clean up their acts. There is a wide gulf between certifieable and very good.An aweful lot of manufacturers are playing the power race, which I don't like, I wish they were trying to complete on all the RF qualities of their equipment. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. I am a ham and I have been for 48 years. I've also held an FCC Commercial License for 28 years. Without my ham experience, I doubt that I would have been able to transition into the license-free wireless industry in 1993 - which was before any WISPs even existed. My years of ham experience made the transition relatively easy. I recommend that all WISP operators consider getting their ham licenses which, BTW no longer require any Morse Code tests. jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You a HAM operator, Jack? - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Mark, Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques. This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a network that interferes with itself and with other networks. To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified systems from them. jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. See comment inline, near end of post. Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part 15 certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor receivers. jack Well, I should have been more clear. Yes, there are tests and certain limits. Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting. I'd like the best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, etc. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask
Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
- Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Mark- Which is it? Quote 1: Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC opinion. That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters, the defense against Quote 2: kinda doubt it's going to happen. At least not soon, regulators are notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them. Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here. Quote 1 is opinion. It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA. At one time, they had the opposite opinion. Their opinion is all that keeps us from being fully regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are. Now that they have inconsistency in that classification, pressure to change others is much more effective. Quote 2 is about published and established rules. They don't like changing them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns. Rick -- 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: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
Well, exactly what I said. I don't know how to restate it, and don't particularly wish to argue it.. .It's just that the people of the FCC, ergo the things it decides by opinion change often, often with just administration changes or elections, or sometimes just pressure by other agencies. This is characteristically indistinguishable from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, BATF, and whatever other alphabet soup of regulatory agencies whose opinion stances change with the winds of politics. On hte other hand, changing printed rules and regulations requires a lot of work and time and effort, not something political types tend to undertake very often. Adding new, when it's expedient to get some press, is far more common than revisiting the old and obsolete and starting over to improve and update. Or, in other words... Nothing really, other than just observed human nature in action. - Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:17 PM Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Mark- No, I am just asking about your true opinion of the regulators - the FCC - which is the subject of both of your statements. Or are you somehow referring to two different sets of rule-setting fruits? In the first, you suggest that they have ever-changing and obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. In the second, you seem to think they are rigid in their ways, that They don't like changing them... they resist that, because it's untidy. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. - Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Mark- Which is it? Quote 1: Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC opinion. That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters, the defense against Quote 2: kinda doubt it's going to happen. At least not soon, regulators are notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them. Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here. Quote 1 is opinion. It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA. At one time, they had the opposite opinion. Their opinion is all that keeps us from being fully regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are. Now that they have inconsistency in that classification, pressure to change others is much more effective. Quote 2 is about published and established rules. They don't like changing them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns. Rick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
Ok... well... example. part 15 of the FCC rules. This is written rules. They don't change without a bunch of public notices, meetings, NPRM's, etc. The FCC can change it's mind about... say, whether we are subject to USF fees. This isn't codified as rules. They simply announce the change. Rules are harder to change than the FCC's opinion about something. You might even get favorable opinions from the FCC on a rules change, but it still doesn't happen. I really don't think anything different about the FCC than I do the whole of the federal government in general... It overreaches, it has exceeded its boundaries, it is highly disconnected from everyday life, and far too influnced by highly funded lobbyists. Aside from that, I dunno what's mysterious here. - Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Well, I still can't follow you. Of course you don't particularly wish to argue it; you can't seem to answer my question about your true feelings regarding the FCC, and I guess now to include all regulatory agencies. The things they decide on opinion are not written down? And the things they write down are not opinion? Confused, Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:54 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. Well, exactly what I said. I don't know how to restate it, and don't particularly wish to argue it.. .It's just that the people of the FCC, ergo the things it decides by opinion change often, often with just administration changes or elections, or sometimes just pressure by other agencies. This is characteristically indistinguishable from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, BATF, and whatever other alphabet soup of regulatory agencies whose opinion stances change with the winds of politics. On hte other hand, changing printed rules and regulations requires a lot of work and time and effort, not something political types tend to undertake very often. Adding new, when it's expedient to get some press, is far more common than revisiting the old and obsolete and starting over to improve and update. Or, in other words... Nothing really, other than just observed human nature in action. - Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:17 PM Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Mark- No, I am just asking about your true opinion of the regulators - the FCC - which is the subject of both of your statements. Or are you somehow referring to two different sets of rule-setting fruits? In the first, you suggest that they have ever-changing and obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. In the second, you seem to think they are rigid in their ways, that They don't like changing them... they resist that, because it's untidy. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. - Original Message - From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about technical values. Mark- Which is it? Quote 1: Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC opinion. That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters, the defense against Quote 2: kinda doubt it's going to happen. At least not soon, regulators are notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them. Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here. Quote 1 is opinion. It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA. At one time, they had the opposite opinion. Their opinion is all that keeps us from being fully regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are. Now that they have inconsistency in that classification, pressure to change others is much more effective. Quote 2 is about published and established rules. They don't like changing them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns. Rick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
John, the reason I don't buy it, is as has been said...we're days from the deadline, and we have nothing. And, further, we don't know what's being worked on. There's a whole LOT of issues. There's extraction. There's picking out what's required. There's storage, there's VPN to the LEA, the list just goes on and on and on. Nobody can build a single device or program that can be applied to even the majority of networks. Not even a single point passthrough device that caches everyting (think solera) is going to work, if we have mutliple gateways in physically diverse locations.No solution is going to be universal. We all have such diverse ways of doing things that I'd say that any single solution won't even apply to the majority. There's the data format requirement, and the list goes on and on. What particular aspect is being worked on? The part that converts data to what they want? What about the tools to get the right information? What about a handbook that explains what data is required by the babble that shows up as acronyms or legalese?What about LEA's VPN's? What standard do they follow? Once you start down the road analyzing what you have to do after looking at the requirements, the 'assurances' here, at least, leave more questions than before. Without knowing what WISPA's doing, or anyone else is doing, we don't even know what parts won't work for us and we need to try to synthesize in two weeks. I have many hours of reading everything I can find, starting with the rules published by the FCC. Much of what is being said on this list by WISPA CALEA project people appears to conflict with what I read from the FCC itself.Once you start through the process they outline, you will FULLY comply, or you will exit the business, and that FULLY comply requires a lot of things that have been pooh-pooh'ed publicly here. Now, not to pick a fight, which I don't want to do. Nor to argue the merits of ANY of this, I consider myself reasonably bright and at least somewhat capable of running a WISP... And yet I cannot, seriusly, cannot figure out what I really have to do and not do. Much of what's being discussed here and elsewhere is VERY confusing.For instance, I keep reading that if you follow the industry standard, then you only have to do what's in the standard. But if you don't, then you have to do everything they ask. How the heck can the standard be acceptable if it doesn't do everything they want?If we must capture all the traffic, then it must be done at the client end. If we can't, then we really ARE NOT compliant. What's the point in working on something that's obviously deficient in the first place? Mostly, a lot of us just understand in our guts, that they have all the power, and absolutely NO hesitation in destroying us individually. Washington DC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS. Learn this, accept it, it is the definitive truth.Reassurances that they're not out to get us is nothing more than the attitude of a few political types in DC that have talked to WISPA people. We won't be dealing with them. Their assurances are... worth less than the ink required to print them out. The only hesitation they have, is if they get painted badly in the evening news.And we'll never make the news. The fact is, the people enforcing the rules are going to go by the letter. The absolute letter, bent as far as possible in the direction they want it bent. And that won't be our favor.Enforcement won't be impressed by but I was assured you won't put me out of business.We're just a number and name, and not even a face. They'll do what government does... hand out fines as agressively as they can justify. And since none of us can individually mount a defense of any kind, we ARE gone and dead. Why WISPA did not say in first response This CANNOT BE DONE, I have no idea. But you spoke for us and said you thought it ws a good idea. You killed us without any more consideration, apparently, than DC has for us. I say this to the people who communicated / filed / responded to the FCC and FBI. Frankly, I suggest we collectively hire some legal counsel to find some way of just stepping around it or a solid strategy for dealing with the fallout. Some real legal eagle shark type stuff. I suspect whether we do our utmost or ignore it, we're mostly going to end up in the same shoes. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to accept it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market opportunity is lost if you aren't CALEA compliant. I firmly believe every
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page We've got a long way to go yet. No, we have 3 weeks. But here are a few things so far. You don't NEED a safe harbor. You don't HAVE to follow anyone's industry standard to be compliant. No, of course not. Can YOU do this on your own? I suspect not. You don't need a TTP. Only if you're so well educated in networking that you can use the VERY geeky tools out there to rip the data and headers apart and put it all back together in the form they demand it be provided in... with perfect accuracy. What you DO have to do is collect specific data. How you do so is up to you. Of course. Since most of us can't do that, we HAVE to have third party something, be it software or hardware or services. You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect. You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date. This means you better be an expert at what you're doing. I have a decent understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical experience, and not even any theoretical education on how its done. You do have to do as much as you can to help LEA. If you do not follow *a* standard, you've got to try to do anything that LEA asks of you. If you follow a standard then you only have to do what is required by the standard. In other words, if you don't follow a standard then you're totally screwed, unless you have one of those brilliant geniuses on staff who can do anything. CALEA is reasonable just like emissions on power plants is reasonable. Mark, when you were a mechanic you had to dispose of old oil, solvents, brake dust etc. in specific ways that were more expensive than just dumping it in the parking lot or down the drain. The costs are sometimes Sure. We BURNED IT. Got useful heat from it. transferred to the end user because it's REASONABLE for the business operator (or home owner or whatever) to take some responsibility for making this a better country. No shame in that. NOT AT ALL. It is NOT reasonable to expect the vast majority of the operators to be able to do ANY of this, from the 24/7/365 phone answering to the deep technical knowledge, to the redesign of networks to the incredibly expensive TTP's.Trust me, Marlon, those TTP's are out to screw you as hard as they can. Competition? There WILL NOT BE ANY. If you have to sign an NDA to get a price, this is worse than the telephone company's competition- which does not exist. By the time we (wispa) get done with CALEA we'll have a low/no cost option for the average company. Some of you will likely have to redesign your Marlon, THERE IS NO AVERAGE COMPANY!That's the whole problem in a nutshell.The AVERAGE is going to be very small, since the vast majority of networks (by number) are little bitty things with 1 to 20 people informally sharing something. networks a bit. That won't be all bad as you'll also have more ability to understand what's happening on your network and to stop things like broadcast storms etc. I built my network right to begin with. I have no issues whatsoever with broadcast storms or otherwise.I only have to deal with things like virus and malware infected clients. You guys really do have to stop panicking! You're scaring the stuffing out of too many people. This isn't a bad law and it's doesn't have to be horribly expensive. You still do not get it. IT IS WRONG for them to transfer law enforcement duties to us, for their convenience. Dangit Marlon, it's just as if the cops demanded the gas stations GIVE them all the gas their cars need, and that the restaurants feed them for free and mechanics fix the cars for free, ISP's give them internet for free, telcos give them phones for free, blah, blah, blah. And darnit, I want to scare the stuffing out of EVERYONE so they'll stop being passive fools and STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES, instead of being wiped out like lemmings. MOST of us will likely have hybrid plans in place. Some of the work we'll do ourselves with our routers, servers etc. Some of the work we'll contract out to people like Bearhill. And who can afford a TTP?Maybe you can. I don't even collect a paycheck. Where the hell do you think that money will come from?Gads. Have you completely forgotten what it was like to start up? Just hanging on by your teeth, when you had to buy stuff in 1's and 2's and 5's because that's ALL THERE WAS in the bank and all there was going to be?You never had to ask people for 10 days or 30 days now and then on a bill? You think money just grows on trees and we're all swimming in the falling leaves? marlon - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:02
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page.... telecom services
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page telecom services Mark Koskenmaki wrote: There are many other ways for law enforcement to get what it needs. Even better would be a REAL law, written properly, and funded properly by Congress, instead of this absurdity about information services and telecommuncations services. You know, of course, that this hybrid 'standing' is about as shaky as a sand castle on the beach. It wont' be any time before we're fully telecommuncations services and the mandates and regulations and controls fly at us like vultures to roadkill or flies to a cowpie. Actually, shaky would be incorrect. Please read the Supreme Court's opinion on Brand-X. It states in no Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC opinion. That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC. Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters, the defense against further redefinition is little more than how much noise and ruckus we can raise. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page Sigh. No we don't. We have as long as we need. So the deadline is no more? I read it. There will be no exemptions and there will be extensions. I read the rules, published by the FCC. So, did they lie, or has there been an update nobody's been told about? Nope. I'll have to hire Butch to help me out. Probably Mike too. But those two things won't cost all that much. It'll just be some programing on devices I already own. Not much worse than what I do when I need some router or server work done now. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Nope. I honestly don't understand why you want to pile all of this stress upon yourself. Those of us that are EMBEDDED in the problem aren't as worried as you are. If it were really as bad as you're making this out to be we, of all people, should be ready to put a bullet in our heads. That's because you have money and credit and don't really care about doing the right thing, vis a vis federal mandates. Instead, I'm more at ease than I was before WISPA started it's efforts. I'd be a lot more at ease if WISPA was going to stand up for the industry. You don't need a TTP. Only if you're so well educated in networking that you can use the VERY geeky tools out there to rip the data and headers apart and put it all back together in the form they demand it be provided in... with perfect accuracy. Nope. There are free tools out there to help and people that don't charge more than OPEC to help you out. But you can't point to a single one of them, and you have no idea how to make my network compliant. Not a clue. This is why I find this it's no big deal' so amazingly frustrating. What you DO have to do is collect specific data. How you do so is up to you. Of course. Since most of us can't do that, we HAVE to have third party something, be it software or hardware or services. Nope. That'll be the easiest but it's not a requirement. Marlon, either come out and state you think the requirements are just loose guidelines, or start admitting we're all clueless. But, heaven forbid, you might actually have to ask someone for some help :-) Sure. Send over 10 grand. That might do the job. You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect. You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date. This means you better be an expert at what you're doing. I have a decent understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical experience, and not even any theoretical education on how its done. Nope. It just means you have to keep something called a HASH file. Whatever that is. The hash is nothing more than a key file to assure a file is unchanged. It has nothing to do with the things I mentioned above. You do have to do as much as you can to help LEA. If you do not follow *a* standard, you've got to try to do anything that LEA asks of you. If you follow a standard then you only have to do what is required by the standard. In other words, if you don't follow a standard then you're totally screwed, unless you have one of those brilliant geniuses on staff who can do anything. Well, certainly following a standard is going to make things cheaper and easier on us. But hey, that's part of why people should support WISPA. We're putting forth the effort to be able to develop a standard aimed right at our industry. Cool huh!?!?!?!?! Not really. It wont' help me any. CALEA is reasonable just like emissions on power plants is reasonable. Mark, when you were a mechanic you had to dispose of old oil, solvents, brake dust etc. in specific ways that were more expensive than just dumping it in the parking lot or down the drain. The costs are sometimes Sure. We BURNED IT. Got useful heat from it. And put lots of nice heavy metals in the air. Nice. grin Huh? You burned your antifreeze? Greasy rags? Solvent? Right. You did not ask about antifreeze or greasy rags.Our rags came from a laundry service.We didn't have any antifreeze to deal with. transferred to the end user because it's REASONABLE for the business operator (or home owner or whatever) to take some responsibility for making this a better country. No shame in that. NOT AT ALL. It is NOT reasonable to expect the vast majority of the operators to be able to do ANY of this, from the 24/7/365 phone answering to the deep technical knowledge, to the redesign of networks to the incredibly expensive TTP's
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page Sigh. No we don't. We have as long as we need. So the deadline is no more? I read it. There will be no exemptions and there will be extensions. I read the rules, published by the FCC. So, did they lie, or has there been an update nobody's been told about? No changes. I'm saying that you don't have to follow a standard to be compliant! Huh? You said we have as long as we need??? roflmao. Oh boy, do you have me pegged wrong! I happen to think that CALEA is a PERFECTLY reasonable request. And I Well, we could not disagree more. happen to think it's got pretty good safeguards in place. After all, they have to go through me to get to my customers. *I'm* the only one in a possition to be able to snoop on my customers via my network. And I know *I'm* not gonna do that. I don't want to be in the position of having to do that. Instead, I'm more at ease than I was before WISPA started it's efforts. I'd be a lot more at ease if WISPA was going to stand up for the industry. Mark, do you not believe that that horse isn't already dead? There's nothing left to stand for. Ok. If you say so. Then WISPA has no purpose. And honestly, CALEA is about as unreasonable as requiring that people all drive on the right hand side of the road. Sheesh. OK, clue me in on how YOUR network is going to be so impossible to make compliant. We have some very smart people on the CALEA list, we also have the ear of the FBI. I'll bet we can find a way that you can afford and make your network compliant. I've already told you. Or don't you want to fix this problem? I don't want my industry playing dead when it comes to injustice from Uncle Sam. Neither one. The requirements are pretty specific. But HOW you get to that point has been left up to you. They just want the data. The way you get it to them really is pretty loose. I know you don't think that, but it's true. Right. Somehow I'll bet that getting the specific data into the format required is beyond the technical understanding of MOST of us. I ALMOST disbanded the CALEA committee. There, for the first time, I've said it. We need to do this though. Not because no one else can, but because no one else HAS. But, heaven forbid, you might actually have to ask someone for some help :-) Sure. Send over 10 grand. That might do the job See, there ya go. Where did you get that number? Oh yeah, from a mailing list that was talking about companies profiteering via our ignorance. It's not $10k it's $100k! You must have missed that memo. grin No, marlon. That's getting a building, some new backhaul eqipment, a router, and new site leases. THAT is what's required, Marlon.And that's all BEFORE I buy a TTP's service, or a box from someone, or any other such things. it's presuming that I can somehow muddle through the morass of stupidity on my own. Mark, ASK Bearhill, Imagestream, Mike E etc. See if they'll give you a quote for your network. Then tell the rest of us so we can all either start sweating more or relax a bit. thanks They have absolutely no clue what my network looks like, how the equipment it's built on works, or anything else relevant. And, no matter what their fee... I can't pay it. \ You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect. You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date. This means you better be an expert at what you're doing. I have a decent understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical experience, and not even any theoretical education on how its done. Nope. It just means you have to keep something called a HASH file. Whatever that is. The hash is nothing more than a key file to assure a file is unchanged. It has nothing to do with the things I mentioned above. It's the hardest part of the process. At least as far as I can tell so far. no, it's not. It's a simple command line applicaiton that returns the hash for a file / files / all files in a dir, etc. It's just tht you're going to have to maintain the original raw data
Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
Have you ever driven from Odessa to Spokane? - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Marlon's main city is Odessa, WA. Within 65 miles is Spokane, WA that has hundreds of thousands of people, plus all the suburbs. It seems he is short sighted by not expanding into that market 6-8 years ago. Sixty miles is nothing... I have a single 73 mile shot that has been running 100% uptime for almost 2 years. Travis Microserv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: I have to come to Marlon's defense a bit here.The idaho falls / pocatello area has DRAMATICALLY more people than the central washington wasteland Marlon serves. You serve the populated areas of Bonneville, Bingham and Bannock Counties, if I estimate your coverage. This approaches a quarter million people, at least for the three counties, it does. Marlon's town is about 1000 people, Lincoln and Adams County together have less than 30K people, and his main competition is a utility which is using it's financial might to subsidize buried fiber to every home in Grant County. I have seen Marlon's territory, driven through it, and seen his operation. It's a collection of small community markets. I would say that in spite of being small, he probably has considerably higher market share than you do, for the places he covers. None of this is to disparage anyone. But you can't compare apples and oranges like that and have it make any sense at all. I suspect you'd struggle mightily to adapt to marlon's situation... and vice versa. Let's not go off on each other here.. We have much better targets to aim at. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over 3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks, hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders, or any long-term debt whatsoever. :) (OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates, better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.) Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;) rant Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years (including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime (including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area). /rant So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time? Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area rather than give that customer away to the competition? Spectrum congestion. Cashflow Speed. Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money. I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a potential customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the years and it has always paid off. Once one person is connected, they tell their neighbors about it. Pretty soon an AP that was put up for a single customer has 10 or 20 customers on it. Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place! Doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Plus when they need tech support, how do you troubleshoot the competitors AP's? How do you do RF link tests and packet loss tests at 10:00PM when the customer is on the phone? I call the competitor on his cell phone
[WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
I know you're absolutely sick of hearing about it. But here's someone who actually intends to stand up and do something about CALEA. WISPA needs to join this fight. If you want these people supporting WISPA, support them! www.wispa.org Will WISPA actively seek to defend small networks - most of which will be wireless - from being simply shut down becasue they can't comply with mandates designed for telephone companies? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RE: [WISP] Post card marketing
Hey, Rick, that's cool. I plan on doing something similar, but with doorhangers this summer. College kids will be contracted to go drive around and hang these on the doors of every farm, home, whatever, that appears to be in range of an AP. We expect to get real busy :) - Original Message - From: Smith, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:37 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: [WISP] Post card marketing We've printed ours on a color laser. No problems mailing them. We got some returned due to no suitable mail receptacle, and the printing all looked fine... I attached the most recent we sent out. No calls on it yet, but we mailed it Thursday. R From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISP] Post card marketing The printer told me that they would advise me to use labels instead of direct printing because the ink would run. I mentioned using a laser printer. Wouldn't the toner be fused to the card and thus not run? If they're referring to the card itself running because of the heat of the laser printer, wouldn't an inkjet solve that? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: [WISP] Post card marketing Does anyone have examples of post card marketing they have done? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- 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] from WISPA's home page....
I won't defend all the crazy intrusions by government. But this is not a fee to conduct business. This isn't a tax. This is a mandate to carry out the functions of law enforcement for them, purely for thier convenience. It isn't even a regulation to enforce quality standards on internet services, nor consumer protection from shoddy internet services, nor is it even a protection from badly conducted wireless operations. Theoretically, your contractor's license and so on were consumer protection concerning the business you were in. The effectiveness can be debated, and this is not the place for that. But, CALEA has NOTHING to do with providing internet services nor consumer protection. It is simply transferrence of law enforcement functions to YOU to do at your own expense, by your own people and at YOUR OWN LIABILITY. If you mix up someone's traffic, because someone made a typo, do you REALLY think that you will be protected from the wrath of the legal eagles out to get you? Don't count on it. And it is impossible for small operators to be in complete compliance. And it presents an obstacle to technological innovation and it presents MAJOR obstacles to certtain types of desired network types, such as mesh. There are many other ways for law enforcement to get what it needs. Even better would be a REAL law, written properly, and funded properly by Congress, instead of this absurdity about information services and telecommuncations services. You know, of course, that this hybrid 'standing' is about as shaky as a sand castle on the beach. It wont' be any time before we're fully telecommuncations services and the mandates and regulations and controls fly at us like vultures to roadkill or flies to a cowpie. It's a very small thing to support the notion that small ISP's be exempt for obvious reasons. But you won't even do that? Why the bloody hell not? What have you got against them? - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Why does wispa want to take an antagonistic stance towards legal high tech wiretapping? BECAUSE IT IS FREAKING WRONG, GEORGE, for the government to shift the cost of law enforcement to specific business entities for its own convenience. Why can't you see this? When I was in the electrical contracting business, I was forced to have all kinds of fees laid upon me to conduct business. This isp business is one of the least regulated with the least intrusive and least government costs. If your moaning and groaning about what will probably turn out to be very low cost solutions, (an assumption) what are you going to do when it comes time to hire employees and then fall inline with those government regulations and costs? -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
Because, like you, he can read the rules, and come to the conclusion that he simply cannot find a way to do everythign required. I can't either. You have safe harbor only if you're using an industry standard, and nobody can point us to one. Unless we have some kind pre-packaged setup, lots of people, including me, have absolutely NO IDEA how to do all the data manipulation and whatnot that's supposedly required. the only pre-packaged solutions are hundreds of dollars a month with a sizeable setup up front or 10, 20, or more thousands of dollars for a turnkey box that does at least some of the functions required. OpenCalea offers nothing to people in my shoes. We're all of what, three weeks from having to file that we're in compliance, and we can't point to anything yet? Where's this cheap solution going to magically spring from, and be trouble free and bug free and compliant? Face reality, it's not here and won't be. Instead, we're goin to string along, making promises and statements that we're going to comply, while we still have no price tag, much less cash in the bank to pay this. The longer we go, the less time there is to develop alternatives to some announced standard mechanism of for doing stuff, or some kind of standard software.. We're flying blind, here. None of us small guys have lawers, consultants, or super techies who can just do this, much less implement the time constraints and 24/7/365 aspects, etc. And we're wondering why the only organization devoted to our industry won't even appeal on our behalf to the authorities, and try to authoritatively explain to them they've gone far beyond the capabilities of most of the target networks. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page How do you know what the costs are Ed? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....
don't forget, you can't charge LEA for the TTP's services. You may pay that TTP for years and they never do a single thing for you. - Original Message - From: Edward H. Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page George, From talking to equipment manufactures, law enforcement, and trusted third party providers. I would roll my own, but even if i had a working intercept device (opencalea's tap program) it would still need to forward the collected data to the TTP for mediation. Ed On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:53:48 -0700 George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you know what the costs are Ed? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the... John, You're being sarcastic here, right? I'd be really surprised to hear that any certification ever was voided because a connector became more available. I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor, old FCC. First off, certain business elements want to eliminate them. Second, certain political interests (controlled by certain business interests) want to control them and determine what rules they make. Third, they regularly get threatened by Congress with reduced budgets. Fourth, their job is to implement the (often vague) laws made by Congress. Fifth, they have to be somewhat vague to try to apply the laws to everyone without pissing off anyone. Sixth, they have to be somewhat specific so their rules don't get challenged in court by the previously mentioned business interests. Seven, their engineers have to be pretty smart to know how wireless really works and what engineering principles to write into regulations. Eight, their lawyers have to be pretty good writers to translate the engineering principles into clearly-written rules and regulations. Nine, they have to craft a website that makes it fairly easy for the public to do business with them. Ten, they have to have pretty thick skin to not get distracted and become vindictive when everyone attacks them. Sheeesh, I never found myself defending the FCC before. Unfortunately, unlicensed does not mean unregulated. Responsible business people (which is what we are) strive to understand the conditions under which the regulatory agency works and strive to interact constructively with the people who work for that agency. I think we've found (and will continue to find) that most of the FCC employees will do what they can to be responsive to our needs if only we will communicate those needs in a clear, responsible, and timely fashion. But I'm probably preaching to the choir here because most WISP-folk already know this stuff and are already playing a constructive role, right? jack There's a reason we call them servants. If they don't like the heat, better find a nice cushy job as a small business startup while trying to defend yourself against a bunch of over-eager regulators. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... (sigh). This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd. Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed, because it'll be down or something. - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC 196 page decision http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL. The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No. 94-102, 96-86). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72). PSHSB, WTB , WTB http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt -- 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] 700 MHz decision at FCC
Justin... I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk to each other via voice radio. I would tend to agree that frequency coordination seems to be a terrible issue. The cited reasons for this was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO hurricane problems. Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities. They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside perception, at least. But as far as I can tell, this isn't about talking to each other, it's about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps? I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else. A lack of spectrum doesn't seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications problems. Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters. I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ??? - Original Message - From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... (sigh). This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd. Why would you say this? I served on the technology committee that drafted the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the FCC/NTIA. The initiative was a response to the first world trade center bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their radios. In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic. A nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical as the cleanest solution to the dilema. Of course, little improved following the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation -- and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC. Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed, because it'll be down or something. Why would you say this? Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles. In fact, I've heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than for losing his gun! Any failure of a public safety communications radio network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event. Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with no explaination. Do you have any background or experience with public safety communications to help understand what you object to? I don't understand either comment. What's your beef? Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC 196 page decision http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL. The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No. 94-102, 96-86). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72). PSHSB, WTB , WTB http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc http
Re: [WISPA] Re: CALEA
- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:03 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: CALEA Getting the data for the LEA is just one part of compliance. What about the more practical issues? CALEA requires: Establishment of policies and procedures for supervision and control of officers and employees Who's got a coupel days to write legalese documents that detail everyting they wanna know? Designating a 24/7/265 POC for the LEA This means that no one or two man WISP can be compliant, unless you hire an answering service, and have people on contact, or else have two of you on duty 365 days a year, 12 hours a day.One man can't do it himself. Validating legal authorization for the ELSUR What's ELSUR? I thought I'd managed to uncover all the acronyms already.. Guess not. Maintaining secure and accurate records A summary of all the records you have to maintain would be helpful. Reporting any CALEA security breaches AND... filling with the FCC how you are going to do the above. Not implementing the policies and procedures may result in legal liability. Assuming you have all that is needed to be compliant how do you actually comply with an order? You are going to at least need to collect the following information: Telephone number/circuit ID Start date/time Officer presenting order Judge issuing order Type of ELSUR Supervising carrier personnel Certification of “senior official...” Subscriber name Date/time order served Court issuing order Court docket/file number Law enforcement officers authorized to receive info LEA contact numbers Carrier employees involved And what about the warrant's validity? CALEA requires the carrier to determine the following: Does the Court have jurisdiction over Carrier? Does the Court Order provide for Technical Assistance? Has the Court provided for compensation? If problems arise, how does the carrier address the issues – inside/outside counsel, Service Bureau, etc Just in case you are wondering, acting on an invalid subpoena is $1,000 min fine. Further, if you are acting in bad faith, the court can create, at carrier expense, a court-supervised monitor of your compliance to ensure due diligence. Any violations detected by the monitor can result in additional fines. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
O ... Interesting. I had always wondered exactly why mobile units were isolated. Now I know. Perhaps the fancy technology is a hindrance, rather than a help. Plain old PTT half duplex would work wonders, it seems. - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC ...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe centralized system was a substantial part of the blame. The same-service radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through the full-duxer...which, of course, drowned. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC Justin... I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk to each other via voice radio. I would tend to agree that frequency coordination seems to be a terrible issue. The cited reasons for this was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO hurricane problems. Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities. They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside perception, at least. But as far as I can tell, this isn't about talking to each other, it's about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps? I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else. A lack of spectrum doesn't seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications problems. Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters. I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ??? - Original Message - From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... (sigh). This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd. Why would you say this? I served on the technology committee that drafted the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the FCC/NTIA. The initiative was a response to the first world trade center bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their radios. In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic. A nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical as the cleanest solution to the dilema. Of course, little improved following the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation -- and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC. Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed, because it'll be down or something. Why would you say this? Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles. In fact, I've heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than for losing his gun! Any failure of a public safety communications radio network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event. Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with no explaination. Do you
Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
I have to come to Marlon's defense a bit here.The idaho falls / pocatello area has DRAMATICALLY more people than the central washington wasteland Marlon serves. You serve the populated areas of Bonneville, Bingham and Bannock Counties, if I estimate your coverage. This approaches a quarter million people, at least for the three counties, it does. Marlon's town is about 1000 people, Lincoln and Adams County together have less than 30K people, and his main competition is a utility which is using it's financial might to subsidize buried fiber to every home in Grant County. I have seen Marlon's territory, driven through it, and seen his operation. It's a collection of small community markets. I would say that in spite of being small, he probably has considerably higher market share than you do, for the places he covers. None of this is to disparage anyone. But you can't compare apples and oranges like that and have it make any sense at all. I suspect you'd struggle mightily to adapt to marlon's situation... and vice versa. Let's not go off on each other here.. We have much better targets to aim at. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over 3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks, hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders, or any long-term debt whatsoever. :) (OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates, better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.) Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;) rant Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years (including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime (including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area). /rant So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time? Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area rather than give that customer away to the competition? Spectrum congestion. Cashflow Speed. Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money. I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a potential customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the years and it has always paid off. Once one person is connected, they tell their neighbors about it. Pretty soon an AP that was put up for a single customer has 10 or 20 customers on it. Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place! Doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Plus when they need tech support, how do you troubleshoot the competitors AP's? How do you do RF link tests and packet loss tests at 10:00PM when the customer is on the phone? I call the competitor on his cell phone. Just like he does with me. Your attidude, while pretty typical, is very short sighted. The more we work together to keep the airways clean and maximize the investments, the better all of our networks run and the faster we can grow. It's that silly ol' Together we stand thing. I was watching a group of kids play Red Rover the other day. I had to wonder how that game would turn out if the kids all tried to stand there and hold their OWN ground instead of working as a team. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: - Original Message - From: George Rogato
Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
- Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all. Hi, Mark's sock puppet who writes like Tim May. Oh, please... you guys are getting absurd.I have no sock puppets, and while I am rather perturbed about the actions going on, I have tried not to be personal with anyone over the issues, and my best to not make it about persons or personalities, but to try to argue about ideas and what WISPA should do. You may look with disdain upon the idea of having WISPA get down and into the trenches of resisting excess regulation, but that's no reason to start campaigns to personally villify ANYONE. We should be able to disagree - me included - without insult or personal affront, here. I know, due to the emails I get, that a lot of readers on this list are in considerable agreement on some point or other, but won't say anything, because they don't want to be the targets of personal attacks. Let's not let this degenerate. Certainly, our reputations can be hurt far more by ill advised personal sniping, while good open and serious debate can do little but improve relations. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator. The added card is. As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs certified the same as laptops. Certified as non-intentional radiators that accept intential radiators that are certified. Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen? I went back and read some stuff over again... You can certify a module with either a permanently attached antenna, or one with a unique connector to a transmitter module. For instance, it appears that if you built an AMP, for instance, that was AGC type with limiting so that it put out constant power and sideband limitations, OOB limitations, etc, regardless of input, you could certify it with any antenna that lives within the FCC rules for eirp, etc. Of course, the complexity and cost of that would make it into why bother product.Its just that's what it looks like can be done. Yes, it appears you can certify a mini-pci card... with either a permanently attached antenna, or with a unique connector. Exactly how this unique connector is enforced, I don't know. Maybe someone has input on this. It says that the rf shielding that provides compliance must be part of the module, and that the enclosure it's put within (or no enclosure) now makes no difference. Is this unique connector required to be just the connection to the card? Obviously they expect there to be a pigtail, because this is meant to allow outside casing to be ... shall we say... irrelevant to certification. Do all connectors have to be uniqe, or just the one to the transmitter module? Now, as far as SBC's go, I know for a fact that Compex WP54's have passed FCC certification, because i have some assemblies from Compex that were certified with a detachable antenna. Thus, we know of at least one SBC that should be easily put in use. I guess maybe what we need is for Wistron, Ubiquiti, Compex... Maybe someone who does routinely certify assemblies to submit a mini-pci and cpe type antenna for approval under these rules. Or, maybe someone who knows the relevant decisionmakers to ask if we can. Rules do now permit equivalent antenna swaps already, and I saw nothing to prohibit this under these rules. As for the base station / client issue I recall some time back, that it was at least the intention of the FCC to allow the client to use PTP eirp rules while the AP was requierd to remain at the lower PTMP rules. Anyone remember the ultimate outcome of those inquiries? Dawn DiPietro wrote: Scott, The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now would it. The SBC would be the host device. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Scott Reed wrote: Right, for the transmitter. That is the mPCI card that goes in the laptop. I am talking about the laptop itself. Laptop = SBC = WRAP = RB = ??? Dawn DiPietro wrote: Scott, In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what would you be certifying exactly? As quoted from said document; The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of Section 15.203 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or employ a “unique” antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna, including the cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the module, either at the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive change. The “professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Scott Reed wrote: And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor is certified with. From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in its certification then: 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it? 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified if it is in a box? Here is what I am thinking. If we would get an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use. The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being emitted. I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box shouldn't negate the certification. That would be like saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on. If this is the case, getting some
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief
I'm a bit confused, because I thougth the FCC specifically stated that there is no longer any funds, nor are any applications under those sections accepted anymore. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf Relevant paragraph: 2. More generally, we herein specify mechanisms to ensure that telecommunications carriers comply with CALEA. Specifically, under the express terms of the statute, all carriers subject to CALEA are obliged to become CALEA-compliant. We find that sections 107(c) and 109(b) of CALEA provide only limited and temporary relief from compliance requirements, and that they are complementary provisions that serve different purposes, which are, respectively: (1) extension of the CALEA section 103 compliance deadline for equipment, facility, or service deployed before October 25, 1998; and (2) recovery of CALEA-imposed costs. - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief Peter, Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000 application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Peter R. wrote: *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief* CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation of at least one particular solution that would comply with a particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application. If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements. No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA. Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,” and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b). More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/ -- 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] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief
- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public, they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to impliment calea and they have a solution for that. Yes, you get to submit to them ALL of your financial data, including your ability to borrow, and all state and federal money avaialble... Ohhh...and the fee for filing that you can't afford to comply is $5200, and they'll decide whether or not you can afford it... but you still pay the fee either way. Dawn DiPietro wrote: Peter, Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000 application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Peter R. wrote: *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief* CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation of at least one particular solution that would comply with a particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application. If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements. No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA. Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,” and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b). More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/ -- 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] LEMMINGS?
I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with some people's attitude that resistance is futile. Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have no prospect of being. The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having to make some kind of change in the way they do business. I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a handful of players. For them to take on regulating an industry with more operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they would be required to do. - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeromie Reeves wrote: On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as Patrick Henry once said Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Who is Patrick Henry?? Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death? Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words. The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young back in the 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
major players. When you read through everything, you find out that they're being very very flexible right now, since they're not even able to figure out how to apply telco terms and law to packet based networks. But they still reserve the right to impose their own definitions of a huge array of terms, and just those redefinitions could be HUGE obstacles to some of us. SOME of you actually like the idea of having only big players, but if that's what happens, then the only people in the wireless business will be the big boys and all the rest will be dead and off flipping burgers or whatever it is we can do. - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? Mark, At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. But to be honest with you this is getting old. We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil disobedience will work in this case not with the small number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mark Koskenmaki wrote: I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with some people's attitude that resistance is futile. Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have no prospect of being. The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having to make some kind of change in the way they do business. I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a handful of players. For them to take on regulating an industry with more operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they would be required to do. - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeromie Reeves wrote: On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as Patrick Henry once said Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Who is Patrick Henry?? Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death? Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words. The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young back in the 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
At one time, a local operator here in the valley tried to set this up, not with BGP and classic peering, but simple static routing to route just that ISP's clients traffic to them.Thus, traffic bound for each other went through a dedicated pipe. of course, this was simple and cheap, back when everyone was connected via frame relay and adding a PVC wasn't expensive or difficult. It would be slightly more complex for WISP's to do this, but for some, it might save a bit of bandwidth through the provider. I don't really think there's all that much in terms of percentage, of traffic from residential or even SOHO customes to other residential / soho customers, so I don't see much value in that. instead, it might seem a bit more... useful?... to instead do classic peering with each other, all at a fixed per-gig transfer or per KByte flow charge for traffic. If we both have a lot of traffic, but it's equal to me from you and to you from me, then the charges cancel each other.It would also be a means of adding redundancy to your own network, and decreased downtime, better paths (lower hop counts). - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering You would classically arrange a peering agreement. You hand each other a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP table. You each use the link like another upstream provider, balancing routes vs capacity vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a set cost per bit transfered and the groups settle up monthly. The main problem I see is one entity will be at a disadvantage then the other due to size. Say isp A has 2 peers, the other has 4. That means isp B will need isp A's links less then B needs A's. There is a very (in)famous case of exactly that (AOL and Cogent). How do you value your peering abilities vs those of someone else, with more or less peers and more or less capacity. On 4/26/07, Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network. In the same area I know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also. I was just wanting to establish a link to one or more of them and start routing (BGP most likely) and pass traffic over each others network. This would allow each to have more capacity and redundancy and not have to pay any large amount for it. I know all of the big players do it and it is the basic fabric the internet is made of. I was just wondering if any WISPs do it and how? Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering Jory, I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Jory Privett wrote: There are several WISP in my area I was wanting to talk to some of them about bandwidth peering. I know that most will not want anything to do with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to make the effort. Has anyone else done this type of thing? What paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you control throughput to and from each network and routing issues? Any help her would be greatly appreciated. Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions Mr. Hush, Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first? SUGGESTIONS of what to do: 1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest. Any volunteers to write and distribute this Press Release? Nobody can write for WISPA except WISPA people, either authorized or designated by management. 2) As a group, inform the subs what we are doing so they are not in the dark and clueless. Try to recruit their support. Tell your customers that they are no longer getting Internet? Naw, write a letter to your subs. Dear customer, I started delivering affordable broadband several years ago, in a free and open environment, where the services I offer were not restricted nor taxed, nor controlled by any state or federal regulatory agency. Recently, the FCC has reversed this trend, and has mandated that I provide the ability to tap and deeply examine, and then provide requested information from the traffic that travels to your home / office / computer / etc. The costs of this are as yet unknown, and my ability to provide you affordable broadband is in serious jeopardy. While assisting law enforcement's legitemate need to track down criminal, criminal activity, and other hazards to our community and / or nation is not objectionable to us, and we in fact wish to help where we can, the FCC has decided that providers will bear the costs of compliance with as yet undetermined requirements. This mandate upon my business could very well put me out of business with no notice whatsoever, and leave you without service unexpectedly. I would encourage you to read the FCC's comments and rules at www.fcc.gov and to contact your representatives at the federal level and the FCC to ask why your internet service must be placed under the control of the federal government, putting your ability to get affordable broadband at risk. There are some options, one is to simply duck the law, and hope enforcment never catches us. Another is just to pre-emptively shut down and find other means of earning a living, but losing all my investment, time, and the jobs my business creates. Yet another option is to estimate the cost of compliance and assess you a one time fee for capital expenditures, since we lack the ready capital to buy the very expensive solutions currently in existence, or to finance this with a permanent CALEA surcharge on top of our normal service charges.These fees could range from $50 to $500 dollars one time, or $5 to $15 per month for continuing compliance costs. The federal government long ago used your tax dollars to pay for the the telephone companies to be compliant with CALEA, but since WISP's are small business, we have no multi-million dollar lobbyist industry in Washington DC to protect us from arbitrary mandates and regulations. This pattern of regulation and usurping the ability of small business to provide necessary services is a benefit to the large corporate entities like telephone companies and cable companies who, if small businesses like us are force into non-competitive price structures or just out of business, will have no competition, allowing prices for internet to spiral out of control. 3) Present to the press the WISPA member total subs count, and ask for the FCC / Gov to really evaluate the economic impact to GDP per state / national level that shutting off wisps would result in. No one knows this number, but you can take the count from the 477 forms. It was about 2% right? Ahh, we're dead anyway. Might as well call it 0%, right? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
Here, read this. it's old, but it's EFF's take on CALEA. http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/ If you take the time and read this through (it's HOURS) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf You'll notice that the FCC readily admits it cannot resolve the technical conflicts between law written for POTS interception and digital packet network monitoring. It is expecting that precedent and our willingness to just throw up our hands and let them have it will eventually settle those conflicts for it, so it will not have to defend the almost incomprehensible dichotomy of POTS telephone taps and internet data interception. - Original Message - From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:10 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion. Mark McElvy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? Mark, So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations into place? No, it means I thumb my nose at them when they come along and tell me I have do something for them...for free. The FCC is not in place to make life easy for you it is there to protect the airwaves from being polluted from every guy that knows something about wireless and slapping computers together. Wrong. It is there to properly regulate the use of a public commodity (spectrum) for the best service to the public. Sorry if this sounds a little crude but with all the discussion lately the attitude seems to be make it easy for me so I can be a player and handicap the competition. This does not make it an even playing field in any way shape or form. The Telcos/Cableco's have to be compliant as does the little guy. They can go whine all the want. I'm sticking up for me. Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter who else gets wronged. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mark McElvy wrote: I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion. Mark McElvy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? Mark, At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. But to be honest with you this is getting old. We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil disobedience will work in this case not with the small number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA? Mark, Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution. I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and defending your position. Who said to be 'civil disobedient'? THAT is what's going on with thousands now. I'm suggesting that we recruit those hundreds...errr..thousands to file and say that they cannot comply. This is not civil disobedience, this is changing the POV of people who made bad policy. They can't possibly undertake the task of taking down thousands of tiny networks, which is what would change policies and possibly get pretty much all of us exempted or changed to some non-mandated terms. Oh, WISPA can just toss them to the wolves and lose absolutely ANY chance of getting them into membership and support.These people ask what's the value in being a member... and if all WISPA's going to do is toss them under the bus, you might as well write off the vast majority of smaller network operators from EVER supporting WISPA in any meaningful fashion. Talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face... Cripes... I've been trying to argue that WISPA is throwing away a HUGE opportunity by not defending the industry as a whole, and is, in effect, alienating the very people it needs to become a much more effective organization. There are NOT thousands of big, profitable WISP's. There ARE thousands of tiny network operators, community networks, neighborhood networks, and other small ventures that simply cannot go it alone and be compliant, but if we could give them a reason... if we ACTUALLY fought for them, then we might create a reason they'd support us. Instead, all we see is intangible promises of 'we'll do what we can' and we can't resist so shut up and go die quietly. Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf, educate everyone, and try some give and take with the regulators. In other words... Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Wow. I guess the title really is right. When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could join WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks, free networks, big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community, neighborhood, or even just block. Now we've decided that the only people who count are the big guys. The professionals? A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't file 477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was no time at all. What will happen when the next mandate comes? Will you start referencing the scores of WISP's? After the next one will it be the dozens? Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us. I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal, hobby, free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP. So, we just toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us? You KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to assist law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light. So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via wireless because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality? I don't advocate lying to anyone. If you can, by george, file you can. But for the rest of us.. File you can't. And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE 15-20K network operators to do the same. Create the logjam that teaches regulators when they've done wrong. This is the most basic tenet of democracy I can think of. There is no holiness to the government or to law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are subject to negotiation and resistance by the governed. I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network. But, I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we stick together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back off and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably comply. As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we can! And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be? oh, he was a renegade? That looks like what you all want to do. AT least the public list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP industry from exinction.Sheesh. Who cares about
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
I read that just about all the way through. It appears we can now certify a mini-pci radio with some specific gain antennas, and use it in any control board. There seems to be some requirement that we demonstrate the software can't or doesn't cause the module to operate outside of certified parameters. The equivalent antenna rules should be helpful here, too. Can someone who communicates with the appropriate people at the FCC get some clarification about certifying gain differences between the PTP antennas and PTMP base station? - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval All, I just received this document and thought it might be of some interest to the list. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. But Jack, this is problem is more than 200 years old in the US. In fact, people with money have been influencing government for... well, as long as there has been money and governments. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation has existed. It has and always be so. There are many things that could be done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us. No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these will get elected and re-elected. All this does is limit the power of those NOT in power to speak to the people. Every time someone tries to limit this, it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power. Money is not the problem. The problem is that we have allowed goverment to do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop. Poll this list, and you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE parts of our economy than they have already. Health care being one. Gee, we whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about giving it EVEN MORE control and power. If money is EVER the problem... It's that the government has too much already. It has so much it can and does use it to pry into and then thinks it can solve with it's money, every so-called problem, be it people unwilling to budget their money to pay the doctor, or whiny snobs who snivel about how slow the public adopts broadband. And the FCC's motivation to rake in the money is why spectrum is so terribly badly allocated. And as soon as government sets itself in charge of something... then EVERYONE is at ther door trying to find ways to get the government to direct favor in their way. The question is: Where does this leave us? My God, do I have to sound like a broken record? We need to have been telling the FCC that impediments to entry into the wireless broadband business are wrong. Be they CALEA mandates, spectrum auction stupidness, or regulations concerning the use of public land. We HAVE to be the broken record... the squeaky wheel... We haven't money or huge numbers... but we can be LOUD. And we should be consistent, with the message that THIS TIME, economies of scale are not the salvation for reaching the people, but DIVERSITY, that is, a dynamic industry filled with everything from mom-and-pop garage based sharing schemes to bit multi-state operators is THE
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even Ok, now that I stopped snickering... Rich, we're not that far apart... but the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know, but often just don't really want to address. That being the obvious outcomes vs the ideal we want. vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. That's the nature of government for you. The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here. That's why I state things like government being lethal. That's its nature, that's just how things are. You people keep confusing that with the notion of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get and keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and responsible government. Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it comes to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our business, our services, or our ability to do either. It is the very nature of government and the governed to be adversarial. I know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not partisan. It's just the nature of the beast, as they say. Anyone who thinks that we must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air. Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant, we WILL get trod into oblivion. That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of the 1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills. If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators the ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid pro quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all despise. Most of them would rather have something good to say and do something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Jack, I do however agree that our elected officials do not control the country anymore. The large enabled Corporations guide policy as they see fit. This allows these corporations to get even bigger and there grasp on policy even stronger. The US is quickly becoming a monopolistic society in my eyes and twenty years from now our children are going to wonder just how ignorant their parents were for allowing this to happen. And someone here called ** me ** a conspiratorial kook... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Tim, I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base unit. did you read? Come on Jack... Here's paragraph three of the background section: 3. In recent years, manufacturers have developed Part 15 transmitter modules (or “single” modules) that can be incorporated into many different devices. These modules generally consist of a completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter (transmission system) missing only an input signal source and a power source to make it functional. Once the modules are authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure, they may be incorporated into a number of host devices such as personal computers (PCs) or personal digital assistants (PDAs), which have been separately authorized.2 The completed product generally is not subject to requirements for further certification by the Commission. Therefore, modular transmitters save manufacturers the time and any related expenses that would be incurred if a new equipment authorization were needed for the same transmitter when it is installed in a new device. _ I dunno about you, but if that does not address mini-pci modules on a single board computer, I dunno what would. That's about as clear and specific as they could get! They CLEARLY are talking about rf network devices. It takes no imagination whatsoever to very effectively create mini-pci cards and certify them under these rules. They even state that the 'enclosure' no longer matters, nor does the device the module is connected to, unless it can make the device operate out of bounds.The software, if it uses the drivers from the manufacturer, or elements of the manufacturer's software, that are approved as far as SDR's go, for TPC and DFS, then yes, it obviously complies with this, because those are certified by the chipset manufacturers. And further, they went on to state that this can be applied to a wide array of rf devices... and they address various types of modulation, frequencies, blah blah. We're talking part-15 based networking devices, they're talking walkie talkies, they're talking about a huge array of devices. I see it as sea change, and take that from the language they use. The requirements are: self contained shielding so it's not dependent on enclosure for unintentional radiation control, has its own power control, can be certified separately from the rest of the device. The worst that can happen, is that we submit a mini-pci and antenna combination for certification and it gets rejected, but it appears to me we CAN certify it. As far as the unique connector rule, I don't know how this is interpreted, but every laptop and mini-pci put in it now has the same connector. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Yes, we still need to submit a wireless card, case, power supply, software, and range of antennas to be certified as a system . No, this change means that the CASE, POWER SUPPLY, and associated other hardware that generates the input signal does not need to be certified to build a certified product. This the exact change we need to be able build our own equipment. The motherboard and case are no longer required to build and keep the system compliant and certified. Just the module itself, with chosen antennae. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
But Jack, they don't have to. Anyone can. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Scott, I believe that your comments are substantially correct. The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember that the software used must limit operation of the complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the U.S. jack Scott Reed wrote: I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC. And I read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can be used. So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack is right, not any base, but I would read it that any certified base is doable. I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered to find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with a set of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9. Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna and be good. The gotcha here is those sections of Part 15 I have not yet followed up on. I am not sure what the professional installer stuff is about. What am I missing or is this good news? Jack Unger wrote: Tim, I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base unit. I think what the FCC is doing is: 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a legal modular assembly is. 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data inputs, and power supply regulation. 3. Clarifying the definition of what a split modular assembly is. 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a split modular assembly must meet. Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, I don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard meets the FCC's definition of a split modular assembly. I think the FCC considers a split modular assembly to be where circuitry that today would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in the future) split between two different physical assemblies. This splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one transmitter control element (the new term that the FCC formerly called the module firmware) could theoretically be interfaced with and control more than one radio front end (the amplifier and antenna-connecting) section. Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do business. jack Tim Kerns wrote: Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it then can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been asking for? Tim - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval All, I just received this document and thought it might be of some interest to the list. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that I'm against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno. Maybe you could explain it to me. Here's where I get the impression, from things you've written such as these few excerpts below. Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. Not really. Uh, Rich... I specifically stated that the industry doesn't need to be controlled. The RF aspects are subject to regulation, as I think perhaps we pretty much all agree they should be. Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect your yes. Absolutely. Why must ** I ** be regulated? What possible public harm do you think me being in the internet business without federal oversight could happen? Too many people with broadband? Too cheap of prices? Too much profit? Too much profit lost by others? If I am free to conduct my business unhindered, it seems the only person who could be hurt in any way is my competition, and customers will benefit. opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know from your own career experiences that this has never really been true under all circumstances. I don't think I'm reading much between lines, but I guess I could be as guilty as anyone. If I have, you've my humblest, sincerest appologies. I knew better even as I was writing the crack which mentioned Ore/Wash. It was a humble attempt at humor for all the anti-gov militia's that always seem to be from there. I know better than to write such crap, but it sometimes leaks out into my writing. Naw, they come from Idaho and Montana. Well, heck, I'd live in either if I could find a way to earn a living. Probably for the same reason... You get left alone in both states. Well, Montana's getting ruined by all the insane Californians, environmental wackos, and movie stars moving and destroying the state, but it's still pretty decent. Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless) and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. This is exactly the disconnect. You've often written that you want total freedom from regulation to do whatever you want, and that this is somehow a historically proven axiom that always works out for the best. Life doesn't work that way. In connection with other threads I've written at length on how the justice dept forcibly knocked down the most advanced telecommunications system in the world to its current position way down in the pack ... because of a complete fantasy that smaller competing phone companies that needed to scratch just to stay in business could somehow maintain a leadership position for the American people and American industry. Total hogwash in a world where virtually every other country has The way I see it, the US innovated not a single thing, and we had completely unchanging and calcified technologically, in the POTS system. I can't imagine this being good. What you saw was that there was almost NO consumer market for phone products. a consolidated PTT (which immediately began gaining ground and passed the United States in leadership, technology, features, etc., etc.). This badly hurt you, me, and every other American. I've written at length in other I can't imagine how. I have far better service, it costs a small fraction of what it used to, and now I have options galore, for phone service. How you can call this bad, I can't imagine. I think it's the best thing to happen to Ma Bell. threads how the FCC (with several large US manufacturers) took us down from our #1 leadership position in the world in cellular technology and service by totally reversing its own previous position on the standards that had at one time made AMPS the world leader. This has badly hurt every American that uses a cellphone, and totally eliminated all US manufacturers out of world leadership (and yet it was originally advocated by US manufacturers ... where my opinion comes from that business's don't necessarily know what's in their own best interest). There's many examples of business's I think you're all wrong. The commoditization of cellular phones is what turned the industry from small potatoes, overly expensive products, to commodity cell phones produced by low-value commodity production systems. Just like we no longer have to pay a month's wages to buy a rather primitive TV. Now you can buy a great one for peanuts,. and Americans aren't
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mark, I agree with you on many of the points that you've been making recently regarding who should pay (or not pay) for CALEA compliance but with regard to the meaning of these FCC rules modifications, I disagree with virtually all of your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that; we are each entitled to our own opinions. Further, I'm not going to keep debating these points with you. I've stated by beliefs and you've stated yours. Feel free to build and certify your equipment any way that you see fit and believe is legal. The discussion that really counts is the one that you have with the FCC. Please see my comments inline and good luck. jack Well, Jack, I guess we'll ultimately find out what they really mean when when they have to answer questions in plain english. While Im sure you have more experience reading between the lines than I have... or at least desciphering the legalese they put out, I get what I say from reading the document. Then again, don't forget... there's the law of unintended consequences... that they say stuff without realizing how it can be interpreted. Ultimately, who's going to be the one asking them for clarity here? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Never say never, they say.What will you do when the FCC or FBI comes and says we want you to help us enforce... blah blah?You're going to have a hard time saying no when you have already made a policy of always saying yes. You will have to blow that non-existent 'goodwill'. It wont' have bought us or anyone else a thing. How many times must I say it? It would be far better to have a solidly honest position of ALWAYS standing up for our industry, in everywhere way, in opposition to EVERYTHING negative. First, let me say that there is no going to DC and standing up for this Industry. It is barely an Industry. And with 200 paid members out of 2000 possible WISP's, it is not very representative. Plus you have Part-15 and its Well, if your point is that WISPA hasn't much muscle, not even combined with part-15's numbers, I have no disagreement with that. This IS, however, an industry, with thousands of players, both big and small. Are we comparable to telco in assets and sales? No, but then for some reason, we can run rings around them in ceertain markets. agenda. You have Vendors and their agenda. You have the so-called Big Boys like NextWeb, Clearwire, ELN or whomever - and thiner agenda. And if by some stroke of luck, energy and effort, you could get them all to back your one principle, even then - and with money in the bank - it would be a wasted effort to spend John's, Marlon's and Rick's own money to go to DC to Stand Up. Because someone would break ranks for a deal or good will or whatever. Hmmm... You know, I thought I made the case that we needed the numbers... and that WISPA needed the numbers, too, for more clout. I guess maybe I have to say these things, and not just let people connect the logical dots. Ask Frank Muto. You have to have Leverage to Stand Up. And a significant number behind you who are willing and demonstrate a willingness to support. Um, we don't have that here. DC is not the Town Hall. DC is layers upon layers of subterfuge. You need a full-time well-connected lobbyist. IN a former life, we hired a well-connected lobbyist to ask Karl Rove if Indie ISP's had a chance (in 2005). This was about the time of Brand-X and Forbearance. The lobbyist gave us the check back with a solemn look. A lobbyist returned money. What does THAT tell you? that says that we're not going to influence Congress much, unless we manage to find some politician allies. I hired a PR firm to craft 14 template letters that just needed a signature, a name and an address to be faxed to Congress. Do you know how many times it was downloaded? 15. Yeah. SO tell me again how WISPA with 200 paid members should Stand Up? I'd love to hear the plan, because the one I used obviously did not work. Hrm... So, maybe the point is that you need to stir up the membership to fight for thier own interest. Best way I can tell, is to slap down the ones that speak up and say they disagree with something. /sarcasm I am not advocating shunning the rules. I am advocating telling those making up the rules as they go, TO BACK OFF BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!It is both our privilege and our duty to tell them to back off when they cross their proper boundaries. And we should be utterly unafraid to do so. Actually all your speeches have been about shunning the rules and you have stated you will not comply. That may not be your message, but that is what you have written. It is not realy your business. But for some reason you want to make this about what I do. Is that because generically, the ideas themselves are hard to argue with?I stated publicly once, clearly, what my intention is. And looks like this... I'm still waiting for some kind of agreement and clear direction from the people working on it. If i can do it, I will. If not, I won't. If not, the FCC is going to know I am not, and cannot. Then I want to know... Where does WISPA fall on this? Does WISPA support the notion of taking out ISP's because they cannot technically or financially, or physically follow some stupidly obscure and obtuse demand? Or will they start arguing in defense of their industry? Because as far as I can tell, I cannot. What I have deployed lacks the technical capability to comply. Yeah, I could help law enforcement, but I can't follow thier stupidly precise and yet obscure specified methodology. I know you've repeatedly complained that I don't put my money where my mouth is, because I can't buy plane tickets and hotel nights and can't run for office in WISPA. But I WILL put EVERYTHING on the line. I'll fight the FCC by myself if I have to. And, it sounds like a lot
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition OK, I'm in a pissy mood today so don't anyone take this too personally. So am I. We filed in support of the new antenna rules. It's MUCH cheaper and easier to be FCC compliant today. So did a bunch of us. The data from the 477 is easy, non useful to competitors etc. and would be MUCH more valuable if people actually filled the dang thing out. We've worked with industry to get accurate data to the FCC via the 477 and other methods. We're not fighting against the 477 cause there's no reason to fight it. It's a LAW and the FCC HAS to ask us for the data. If we're gonna fight for a change in a law we're better off to pick a different battle. Right. The FCC didn't even want information from small providers...and then behold, certain people I was giving money to to represent me (and I thought they were) suddenly turned on me, and encouraged the FCC to apply it to everyone. Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a pissy mood??? CALEA is a law that you must follow. It's not the big nasty thing you keep making it sound like. Nothing more than the electronic version of the wiretapping laws that have been on the books for as long as anyone I know can remember. What WISPA has been doing is helping you figure out what you have to do to be compliant. We've spent out time and money working to make this as easy as we can for you so that you DON'T have to shut the doors due to this. We're also working on mechanisms that will be FBI approved and will allow you to be compliant in even nicer ways for less money. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRYS WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! When I get a chance, we're gonna fight for self certification for WISPs. That'll make all of our networks automatically compliant except in the most extreme cases or where people refuse to run legal power levels. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. HARRRUMPH!!! to repeat an old fashioned retort. I could probably write another page or two about what WISPA HAS done to make YOUR life as a WISP easier and more long term stable/predictable. I think the point has been made though. I like you, Marlon. We've done stuff together and I have respect for you as a person. So don't take this personally...but I call BS on it! My next point is that you really have NO business spouting this rubbish Mark. You made some great arguments but they are based on half truths or ignorance of the facts. They are also, for the most part, a Red Herring. You see, RIGHT NOW we have to be CALEA compliant. If we don't like that we can fight it, but that fight will have to come later. Doesn't matter if we like the law or not, either obey or run the risk of getting caught. WE decided to take the time to help you comply rather than risk getting the $10k per day fines. There will be no fight later. We should have been telling them to stuff it because this silly nonsense that applies to TELCOS doesn't apply to IP networks. Instead, we should be telling them that due to diversity and innovation, it's absolutely impossible to not stifle the way we do things and conform to obscure and frankly... SILLY demands. IF it were me, my comments would be, we as an industry stand ready and willing to assist law enforcement and homeland security any way we can, but it is NOT our obligation to morph our networks into the federal mold at our expense. Rather, it is imperative that the FBI, DOJ, and local law enforcement develop reasonable abilities to deal with IP networks, and that we can work with agencies that have reasonable ability to understand and work with cutting edge technologies, rather than trying to restrain an entire industry for their convenience. I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes. I am just eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen and businessman. Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work. It's called setting precedents,
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Law? Hell, no. It's the FCC's wishes. And we're discussing how stupid the whole damn thing is as well. And here you are defending it. You wonder why I'm in a pissy mood??? It's indirectly a law - the FCC is granted broad powers under current law to request things like this. If you think the FCC's authority goes too far, you're welcome to that opinion (and to try to change others' minds on the subject, though it doesn't seem like you've had much luck so far). Given that the FCC gives us access to a truckload of unlicensed spectrum and, so far, only asks me to fill out a ten-minute form twice a year, I think it's a darn good bargain. It's not a 'favor' from the FCC. I don't owe them a blasted thing for it. It's public spectrum, for public use. It does NOT belong to the FCC, it is charged with regulating it, not doling out in return for favors! It is given the task of regulating it for the best public interest. How well it does that is definitely up for discussion, but that IS the FCC's job. You're acting as if it belongs to them and we're asking for their property. It's not that way. $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION. Sorry. Anyone who thinks we OWE them anything for our existence is cracked. THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE COUNTRYS WORK And they owe us a check for doing work for them. THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101! Maybe we went to different schools. Mine had a bunch of classes on how everyone is responsible for doing their part in a participatory democracy. (I know, this is technically a representative republic, but bear with me here.) You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. The government doesn't give you stuff for free, you don't give them stuff for free. It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. A few minutes to fill out a form is a pretty darn good price for everything we get from the FCC. I'd say they are sorely overpaid. As far as everything we get? In my view, they are derelict in doing what should be done. Hardly a case that I owe them my identity, and my business information in return. Even more offensive to me, is the idea that we can brown-nose them into getting stuff. If that's the case, and that's how we want the game played, then we have no chance against the high powered, high dollar efforts by the big boys. We have to appeal to right, wrong, reason, logic, and principle. It's all we have. And it's certainly better to play that game than to get down in the muck where the money tries to buy what they want. So, we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the sole reason we're issued network mandates. To be blunt, your opinion is (apparently) in the minority. If you think CALEA goes too far, I don't think anyone is preventing you from making FCC filings to that effect. What, you want me to get into a filings fight with WISPA?Geez, man. I was here when WISPA was started, I STILL WANT TO SEE IT GROW. I want it to be the energetic organization that people see value in jumping in and supporting. I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes. I am just eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen and businessman. Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work. While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have), filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously weird going on with your network. You say this, but yet none of us seem to be able to point to a single WISP not using someone else's services or software to do it, and nobody seems to know if ANY of it works yet. This is hardly overestimating. Besides, who the heck cares if it's overestimating. If it forces anyone to change how their products work, then it's wrong. I'm seeing people talking about COMPLETELY
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Whoa... I think someone's goofed slightly here. I said i don't owe them my services, skills, etc, for free. David said that we don't get stuff given to them, and we should not be giving them things for free.However, I think his point was that he's viewing the mandates on us as payment for unlicensed spectrum. I see unlicensed spectrum as nothing more than the FCC doing it's job, to promote use of a public asset (rf spectrum) as it's supposed to be used... for the benefit of the people. I don't see that as obligating me to do any old thing they happen to dream up for me to do for them. And if it's a quid pro quo, where's the balance point? Do I owe them a $100 / mo service? A $3000 + 400/mo ttp contract for it? WHat is it? And why aren't we defending our industry from gatekeeper regulation which stifles entry into it? Man, you people don't logically connect the dots, do you? Why wasn't WISPA asking every member, list member, and everyone else they could to flood the FCC with objections, and then offer a much saner view of how ISP's can assist LEA's?WISPA doesn't need to advocate flaunting the law to object, as some here are misportraying the notion.Instead, we're trying to downplay a very arbitrary intrusion into our networks and business. Instead of building leadership, WISPA is letting it slip away. Or maybe WISPA's figuring to join the ranks of the TTP's out there trying to scare people into buying into something for protection. When that's done to a brick and mortar business, it's called extortion. Really, I don't think they are... But that's how some people have viewed it. I know, I've seen the comments. - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 21:19 -0700, George Rogato wrote: David E. Smith wrote: Mark Koskenmaki wrote: You pay some property taxes, you get to use all those roads they built. . It's all trade-offs. Basic freshman-year-of-college economics. I just wanted to point out an error you just made mark, you said : The government doesn't give you stuff for free, And your correct, but this other part is incorrect: you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Heh... Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment? Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ? That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or spending money to provide services or labor without compensation. Heck, CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them... Why the heck are we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree there's any debt or obligation whatsoever. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition you don't give them stuff for free Yes we do. Care to quantify this statement? Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes. George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps
My expeirence is that the grids are on par, gain-wise, with the solid dishes. The solid dishes have MANY RF advantages, but a 26 db grid will do 26 db and 29 dish will do 29. the solid dishes have advantages in stability, beam accuracy, front/back ratio, and so on. But the gain is the gain, it seems. - Original Message - From: Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps Does anyone have some real-world experience comparing the grid with the solid 5.8 antennas. Is the listed gain accurate in describing performance? or are there additional advantages of the solid dish at equivalent gain ratings? I have only installed grid at this point, due to local high wind considerations and the cost factor. Thanks. Steve -- Mark Koskenmaki wrote: I don't know what equiopment you use... but... here's a scenario... 20 dbm radios...15 db panel on one side and a 32 db solid dish on the other. At 15 miles, you should have a -68 signal. (Araya's link calculator says this)You're WELL within the P2P eirp rules for 5.8, and at -68 you should be able to use a star-os or mikrotik or other similar based link at around 36Meg data rate. My stuff will stay pretty much at 54meg data rate at a -68, and even serious weather fade should keep you at 24Meg or above. Workable? pacwireless sells the solid 32db dish for 270 online. I sometimes use Compex 23 dbm a/b/g radios, for the power at 5 ghz, and they cost what I used to pay for CM-9's. - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps I'm needing to do a 14-mile link at 5.8GHz. I will have to use a 15-or-so flat panel antenna due to building owner's asthetics requirements. On this 8-story building, I'll mount to the side of the masonry, then I'll have about 25 feet of LMR-400 from the antenna to a weatherproof enclosure with 110v power. On the other side I'll be 100' up on a tower on a hilltop, and I can use a higher-gain antenna. I believe I'll have to use an amplifier to achieve this. Soo... A) Am I incorrect about this? B) If I'm correct, what 5GHz amps have you found to be effective? C) Opinions on using regular or bi-directional amps? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant, were pretty much the same. I am not offended by it, so no worries. You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal... it goes something like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation. I'd like to point out that there's no cooperation, really. Oh, a little. They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto over ANYTHING they propose to demand. All couched in nice language, but it's still the man with the gun saying do it or die. And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of confrontation. When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know or care, these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in opposite directions. I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be, but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance. The question is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights between the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that are supposed to be compliant are not. Then what? As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members. Part 15 has no huge number either. At that point, does the FCC start shutting down THOUSANDS of networks? If the industry associations take their side... Yes. And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people down... Exactly what do you think their future growth will be? This is going to get ugly, people. It's going to get REAL ugly, because I don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence. I know where Bullitt stands. He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant people. I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned from everything Part-15. It was his stand that he was going to employ people to search out WISP's and report non-filers. I dunno if he did or not. This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die. The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce. If that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it? I'm not asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation coming. And, it might NOT be over CALEA. It might be the next thing to come down the pike. Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit of criminals? Oh, absolutely. So far, WISPA is sitting the fence. We don't police the industry. But what will be the response when the FCC asks them to? I would suggest the board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this now. I'm not even suggesting one way or the other. I'm no longer a member of WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade organization for WISP's. I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry. What will be the response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP business? As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS. That's because that's who is always the forefront of any industry. The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the stubborn, and willful. And I can predict without any hesitation that a majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance. Not because what they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience. The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter which way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will NOT be without pain, cost and consequence. No matter which way WISPA goes, it will cause grief, pain, and consequences. There's NO WINNING this one. There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose. I suspect you all know what the stand would be should i be in charge. But either way, the sooner leadership gets on a side, and stands by it with whatever principles they choose to uphold, the better. Yeah, I think we should have addresssed this long ago. But there's another important decision by the feds to make.. and that is what kind of enforcement... Enough fight from the industry, and they WILL change their minds. As you so clearly stated, DC is a land of linguine spines. Expedience is king. That's why the FCC dumped CALEA on us in the first place. No stomach for the fight. Now, what will we do? You imply that in order to win their way, the feds are willing to
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
- Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, As the driver of the bus I feel compelled to reply. You certainly do a god job of selling your ideas. I could almost decide to mutiny along with you if I did not believe that part of doing business is to obey the laws of the land. But I am not talking about mutiny. Where is the unwritten rule that whatever Uncle Sam wants, he gets without argument? There is a very much alive principle that there is going to be contention between those un-elected regulators and those they seek to regulate. If we have no choice, if we cannnot argue back, then we live in a society I no longer recognize nor want to live in. If it is WISPA's position that we cannot lobby, argue, and publicly campaign against things they do wrong, then WISPA's wrong too. So far the government of the United States has asked some fairly basic things of me and our industry in order to be able to use the airwaves for free in the United States and to freely operate our businesses. Baloney! I was BORN WITH THE RIGHT to do this. I do not owe the federal government one single IOTA of consideration. Sorry. I pay my taxes. That's my obligation. I do not OWE for the privelidge of being in business providing needed services. I do not owe one smidgeon of giving up privelege, rights, or anything else for doing what I do. If I owe ANYONE for the use of the public spectrum, then I owe the people I provide service to... to whom that spectrum belongs. They have told me that I must use equipment which has been tested and certified to comply with the rules. They have told me not to exceed power levels. These are general principles we can all agree on. They want to know where we serve and how many people we serve. They're welcome to poll my valley and find out, if they really want to know. Just demanding I do the work for them is wrong. Plain old wrong. Not to mention, they already admitted the information is useless anyway. Did we tell them we thought that was a bad idea way back when? Nope. Why the bloody hell not??? There's REAL stuff that can be done to advance what they want advanced, rather than waste our time, their time, and our money on pointless nonsense? Why weren't we advocating this all along? They want me to help them if they need to catch criminals who are using our networks for planning criminal acts. No problem. But they can darn well pay for it. Each of these requirements seem to be logical things a government would expect of the businesses who serve the people that they represent. No, it's logical WANTS of a government. They have not the slightest IOTA of reason to expect we should volunteer our time, talents, and spend our money for their wants. I do NOT, nor does anyone else, OWE them this. They are MY SERVANTS. I am not theirs. I do not owe them the slightest consideration or otherwise. They OWE ME if they want me to do something for them. I do not like the way many of these things are being handled by our government and I do not like some of the rules but I have no problem complying with these rules and laws. But you put yourself in the position of being the person to express FOR US, or objections. I feel it is WISPA's job to make sure operators know how to comply with the rules and the laws and to try to lobby for change in the way government interacts with us when we see it is being done wrong. If WISPA ever develops a certification program for WISPs then we will, by default, become somewhat of a policing agency for our industry at least if people acknowledge us as an authority within the industry. The policing authority would not move to the obstructive and intrusive levels as described by you, Mark. It would simply be a self-imposed and recognized certification system which others could support or in your case probably ignore. I am sure part of the certification process would involve an oath that an operator would follow the rules and laws of the country they serve. Any industry trade association who offers a certification process would require the same I would think. Works for me. There would only be government recognition of such a system if they opted to recognize it officially in some way. An example might be that a WISPA certified operator might be granted some leeway in mixing and matching certified components in order to build certified systems which may not have been tested in a lab as a system. Another example would be that the FCC might develop band sharing rules where some bands could be coordinated between certified operators. These are only examples for reference sake. Right. These are items of negotiation between regulators and those wanting something. More to the point, they are the bits
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I used to be, Mac. The why not now is not to be aired in public. - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, Are you a paid WISPA member? Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant, were pretty much the same. I am not offended by it, so no worries. You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal... it goes something like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation. I'd like to point out that there's no cooperation, really. Oh, a little. They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto over ANYTHING they propose to demand. All couched in nice language, but it's still the man with the gun saying do it or die. And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of confrontation. When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know or care, these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in opposite directions. I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be, but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance. The question is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights between the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that are supposed to be compliant are not. Then what? As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members. Part 15 has no huge number either. At that point, does the FCC start shutting down THOUSANDS of networks? If the industry associations take their side... Yes. And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people down... Exactly what do you think their future growth will be? This is going to get ugly, people. It's going to get REAL ugly, because I don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence. I know where Bullitt stands. He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant people. I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned from everything Part-15. It was his stand that he was going to employ people to search out WISP's and report non-filers. I dunno if he did or not. This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die. The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce. If that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it? I'm not asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation coming. And, it might NOT be over CALEA. It might be the next thing to come down the pike. Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit of criminals? Oh, absolutely. So far, WISPA is sitting the fence. We don't police the industry. But what will be the response when the FCC asks them to? I would suggest the board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this now. I'm not even suggesting one way or the other. I'm no longer a member of WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade organization for WISP's. I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry. What will be the response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP business? As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS. That's because that's who is always the forefront of any industry. The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the stubborn, and willful. And I can predict without any hesitation that a majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance. Not because what they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience. The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter which way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will NOT be without pain, cost and consequence. No matter which way WISPA goes, it will cause grief, pain, and consequences. There's NO WINNING this one. There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose. I suspect
[WISPA] What about equipment providers?
If we're to take some of what's been published literally, all wisp equipment providers are going to be required to be CALEA compliant. This is going to lead to some serious compatibility and interoperability issues, if you ask me. HOW equipment maker A, B, and C accomplish stuff is likely going to be different. Thus, a network with mixed equipment may turn out to be almost impossible to put together completely. What about all of us who buy stuff from outside the US?What about the people who have large networks with now out of production equipment? Will CELEA COMPLIANT stickers now be required to get into the WISP business? I don't see anyone addressing this. Nor do I see anyone addressing community and free networks. While WISPA is definitely a WISP association, we're dead in the water if the WISP equipment providers dry up or go away, or we become stuck with one or two equipment providers, and all the compliant stuff is 50% more in price... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Of coures it's flawed. That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip code x has the same. I don't offer service via zip code. I offer service via where my signal reaches. And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it DOES NOT reach. Or...well, it didn't at first. The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is... absurd. We all know that. I know people who won't even pay for dialup. The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons why I'd want to know. But why would the mayor of my town, for instance, want to know? What public purpose would be served by expending resources to find out? None, that I can actually think of. Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies. There is no actual need OF ANY KIND to know the number. If 27 percent of the population has broadband available, is there some kind of crisis? What if it's 80%? what if it's 99.776 %?The answer is, THE NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. Once you realize this fundamental truth, then we can get beyond this, and start to make coherent and logical analysis of what's going on, and what, if anything, should be done about it. First, to get a clear-eyed perspective, let's look at something that's an indisputable need. Food. Is there anywhere in this country you can't buy food? ( Yeah, I know, try going to out eat in Odessa, it's a constraining experience) If you know of any town where the people cannot, without extreme difficulty obtain food, I'd love to hear of it. So, let me ask you... Is the ubiquitous availability of commodity food due to government policy? Was a large government initiative required to get grocery stores available throughout our nation? Did the USDA and other agencies create programs to fund the creation of grocery stores throughout the country? Did Congress address the lack of grocery stores repeatedly until it was solved? The negative answers to all those somewhat silly questions is kind of obvious. Whereever people wanted to live, there was a demand for a place to buy at least the staples and someone filled that need, often more than a single someone, and they competed for the customer. So, why is the FCC and Congress in a dither about where broadband is available? If people want it, it will come. Just like grocery stores. If it won't, then the real question of consequence is... WHY? Is it not economically feasible? If not, why not? Is it physically not feasible? If not, why not? Is the actual demand enough to sustain the mechanism to provide the service? (you mean they might not want it? Yeah... they might not!) Then, finally, what artificial obstructions exist to providing broadband? Let me state some of the issues that the above questions begin to relate to... economically feasible, to start with. What are the main problems that occur money-wise when attempting to bring broadband to an unserved area, or make it financially unworkable? Gee, a good lot of you have done it, me included. What about we collaborate a bit and summarize those obstacles we found and overcame? This would be a good topic for someone to lead a thread on for a while. Physical issues. I met an ISP in Idaho who built a backbone over 2 mountains. He had to go something like 60 to 80 miles to find a location where he c ould get hooked up. Impressive effort, to say the least. What about some eastern and southern areas that are nothing but solid trees? What physical barriers exist to deliver broadband via physical medium (fiber, copper, etc)? How many of us, me included, built a network because our gut said we had a market? Can I see a show of hands? How did we decide that our market was large enough to sustain the size and expense we incurred? Howw many were dramatically wrong in that assumption - in either direction? Lastly, what artificial barriers exist?I have a rather large list of my own, and somehow I'll bet you people can dwarf what I've observed. Let's do this list style. The only connectivity available is through a phone company, and they can price you into the realm of non-workabilty. I have two towns in my market that have specifically enacted regulations to PREVENT any further wireless OR WIRED telecommunications services from being deployed. That is, they have claimed control over all rights of way and the air within their town. No towers, no rooftops, no pole to pole, no underground, NOTHING may be deployed in these towns without going through a process which is carefully calculated to cost a LOT of money the outcome is almost gauranteed to be negative. If the citizens don't object, then they have built in mechanisms to cost unlimited sums of money and unlimited delays at the whim of the any of the city officials. The codes start out with we believe our town to be more than adequately served by
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps
I don't know what equiopment you use... but... here's a scenario... 20 dbm radios...15 db panel on one side and a 32 db solid dish on the other. At 15 miles, you should have a -68 signal. (Araya's link calculator says this)You're WELL within the P2P eirp rules for 5.8, and at -68 you should be able to use a star-os or mikrotik or other similar based link at around 36Meg data rate. My stuff will stay pretty much at 54meg data rate at a -68, and even serious weather fade should keep you at 24Meg or above. Workable? pacwireless sells the solid 32db dish for 270 online. I sometimes use Compex 23 dbm a/b/g radios, for the power at 5 ghz, and they cost what I used to pay for CM-9's. - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps I'm needing to do a 14-mile link at 5.8GHz. I will have to use a 15-or-so flat panel antenna due to building owner's asthetics requirements. On this 8-story building, I'll mount to the side of the masonry, then I'll have about 25 feet of LMR-400 from the antenna to a weatherproof enclosure with 110v power. On the other side I'll be 100' up on a tower on a hilltop, and I can use a higher-gain antenna. I believe I'll have to use an amplifier to achieve this. Soo... A) Am I incorrect about this? B) If I'm correct, what 5GHz amps have you found to be effective? C) Opinions on using regular or bi-directional amps? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- 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] Interesting Call Today
I read about a couple of other people getting similar...errr..all but identical calls on an online forum somewhere, I think it was dslreports maybe? This makes like the 5th time I've seen this kind of posting, but as of yet, nobody has stated they provided any services, it was always just a request that appeared to be evaluating the viability of a conference site. Mark - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:06 AM Subject: [WISPA] Interesting Call Today One of our salespeople got a call today from ATT that I feel I must share and see if others are getting similar calls. The ATT rep told our saleperson that he was looking for temporary (2 day service) to various locations that do not have access to cable/DSL or fiber. They need these connections for conference call meetings and will need our company to set up a wireless router at the location as well. He needs these connections done in as short as a 3-4 day window. Has anyone else had similar calls? Not sure if they are just fishing for information or what. Thanks, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- 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] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
-- Original Message -- To: WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.org) From: Patrick Leary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET Date: 2/8/2007 12:48:20p What should I say next time I'm before people like Julie Knapp, who heads OET. Here is a potential script: Me - Good morning sir, congratulations on earning the Chief position. Julie - Thank you Patrick. What's on your mind? Me - Julie, we could really use more spectrum for UL. Wrong. More spectrum for unlicensed isn't needed. Spectrum which can be used to convey high speed data services at reasonable cost by UBIQUITOUS SMALL BUSINESSES to fill in the gaps in both space and market which the large and corporate world will never fill, and to be competition for them where they do. Yes, we'd like it to not be owned spectrum, so the big guys c an't buy it all up and lock out the low overhead competition. Julie - Well, you already have 589.5 megahertz total from pieces between 902 MHz to 5.7850 GHz. Yes, there's a lot of spectrum for baby monitors, garage door openers, in-house lans, cordless phones, wireless tv cameras, and so on.But since it was never created for the purpose of high speed data services, it is NOT for broadband and data services, but generalized unlicensed. So, while much use has been made of this spectrum, it's spectrum for these purposes that is needed. Me - Yes, that's true and we do appreciate it and know you have been a personal champion for UL spectrum, but we need more so we can build networks that will permit self-installation even in rural areas. Julie - Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby. Me - I can imagine. I'd like to see Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner in a mud wrestling match - well clothed of course. But back to the WISPs, they don't follow the rules because you guys don't enforce the rule. This is why organizations like Motorola continue to lobby against WISP interests. The rules, which were created for entirely different purposes, have been and continue to be a huge obstruction to innovation and industry advancement. Many have gone around them in an effort to try to be competitive...or even function at all. Julie - Nice visual, thanks...So you are telling me that a principal characteristic of your market is that operators will only do what's right if they know someone is looking? Me - No, not all. Yes many, and I admit that even many leader WISPs believe that is an acceptable attitude so long as power rules aren't violated. Julie - So you are saying they pick and choose the rules they are prepared to tolerate versus those we require? Me - Well, yeah, pretty much that's what they do. They argue among themselves about which rules they think matter. Well, Patrick, at this point you have a choice. You can become an advocate of the WISP business and explain WHY rule reform and spectrum is vital to the survival of the industry, or you can use your present and past fallback position, that your company's margins and market should be protected by the excessive, obstructive, and unworkable Part-15 rules structure, and that only the big players have a 'right' to be in the market and that those few who venture into the WISP business should be funded such that it keeps your bottom line nice and fat in spite of the huge costs structure built in place. Julie - Yes, so I know. Interesting attitude. I hear there's been lots of arguing lately about lots of things and what is required of them even though we have been clear, like CALEA, Form 477, the purposes of an STA, etc, Yes, you should explain that the FCC injecting themselves into an unregulated business, is a lot like the federal governmnet coming along and demanding that bicycle repairmen file federal reports and report the services they provide to their customers. For one, they have no idea there's such regulations...and two, you have no such business doing this. Me - What can I say? They believe as small players filling what they see as a gap that they should be allowed some leeway so they can save money. Julie - Did you tell them that the latest data shows 90% of all U.S. zip codes have at least two broadband providers? The gaps aren't so big anymore. So, is the FCC engaged in the business of protecting the biggest operators, or are they in the business of serving the people, providing relevant regulation and promoting competition and services? Me - Well there ARE still holes WITHIN those zip codes Julie. Julie - For the short term, yes. Me - Yeah, so what abou... Julie - No. Me - Excuse me sir? No what? Julie - No more hanging my ass out on a limb for a community that I generally love for their passion and can-do attitude. No,
[WISPA] A modest proposal
In all this conversation... the big guys wanting stiff enforcement to protect them from the death by a thousand cuts as small guys innovate by making their own equipment, and the arguments over the government's enforcement ability or will, sort of miss the point. We need regulations that make sense for this industry. kWe need Vivato-proof regulatory rules, so that money can't buy anyone an advantage in the ability to deploy technology by lawyering their way into certification, what is an obvious fraud to the system. Device certification, as opposed to system. It makes absolutely NO sense to certify a box with a 24 db panel, but object if someone needs to use a 21 db grid due to space or wind loading needs. Or vice versa. DEVICE certification let's there be 1000 innovators and developers figure out how to do do things better, and not incur huge costs for every tiny step along the way. So, if we use certified 20 dbm radio device, certified 16 db sector, then we have a 36 dbm system, do we not? This would do what we ALL want done, to know that what we buy is really what we get. This provides a solid basis and precedent for innovation and compliance in tv whitespace, etc. So you want to produce a radio that works at 4.9 ghz? Great. Certify it's behavior and let integrators use it however they wish. Why must the FCC care if the box it is in varies from deployment to deployment? This provides a great future framework for rapid innovation in wireless, be it unlicensed, low cost license, or normal licensed. It reduces the cost of compliance dramatically... and will have the effect of making enforcement workable and compliance both easy and cost effective without stifling innovation, or limiting it to the unimaginative like Motorola and Trango. The current regulatory structure encourages non-compliance... And the obvious lack of enforcement is tacit admission of the both the wrongness of the structure...and it's obvious problems. We SHOULD encourage both a framework that leads to compliance AND at the same time makes it no longer an obstruction to competition and cost-effective innovation. We need MORE integrators and builders, not less. We need to let ANYONE find creative ways to make a better mouse trap, not restrict to the biggest builders who then nail us with big dollars. This meets everyone's legitmate goals. It encourages outside the US manufacturers who want to build 100,000 radios to spread the certification costs among 100,000 units. Not 25 integrators each certifying the same radio with a different pigtail and antenna. WE need certified antennas that have patterns that are known good, so we don't deploy with bad patterns and ugly leakages. It provides a discipline for manufacturers. It lets a maker like Advanced Antennas or PacWireless focus on producing and marketing to the WISP community without having to try to get the same antenna certified 20, 40, 100 times just on different transmitters or even just different enclosures or connectors. Or a company like Ubiquiti have a legitemate place in the public marketplace to WISP's and not just a small handful of big dollar integrators. We need MORE suppliers, not less. More choices, not less. More options, not fewer, more innovation and minds creating, not less. THAT is how we as an industry can beat the dollars of the big guys. More minds, more thought, more creativity, more imagination. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly Mark, Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are describing. I don't see any relevance at all. The term “Digital Inclusion” is used in this document to describe the goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide to better serve social and economic challenges of underserved communities, both rural and urban. Nice political buzzwords, but does not address why a community or region is economically backward by comparison to it's surround, or the nation on average. The digital divide makes for wonderful thesis writing and great political speeches and a useful football to kick hither and yon and make tons of political yardage.My experience is that the digital divide is far more self-imposed than politically, economically, or socially. Success for an individual is far less dependent upon things like computers and broadband, than it is upon basic education, understanding money and economics, and a mindset seeking opportunity. Those who have the means, and have found ways to utilize it, have made broadband a part of their life... It has become indispensable to THEM. Millions of successful people have not. Neither is superior to the other. If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little better. Maybe I'm ignorant, but as a long time user of broadband, salesman for broadband connections, and operator of a broadband network, and a good communicator with the scores of customers I have hooked up, understanding what and how they use their connection, I would guess I have at least some clues. There are lots of statistical correlations between bad economic conditions and a lack of broadband. There's a lot of words being pushed about how broadband is essential or even being sold as the driver for economic revitalization or improvement in these areas. I completely disagree with that notion, because my experience is that economic improvement will result in more people buying broadband, and then making use of it in ways that improve thier economic conditions. We're talking chicken and egg here... what causes what. The fact is, many things usually need to change in an area to improve the economic conditions... Broadband, while useful and helpful, does not drive these changes, nor will supplying it WITHOUT those other factors accomplish much of anything.Just as building a superhighway to a town where nobody can afford a car doesn't do a lot of useful things... There comes a time when, if economic conditions improve, that highway would be needed. Economic revitalization or enhancement where it is needed can include broadband, provided that the fundamental issues of economics are addressed, and that market driven supply and demand create the need and then fulfill that need... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly Mark, How does YOUR view address the real competition that towns have to attract new business? Bad roads? That's everywhere. Lousy schools? Uh, again everywhere. I really don't see your point. But you can't fix either without a tax base and a working (paycheck collecting) community. Many companies tele-source call center jobs. But not without BB. Medical, Legal, and Court Transcriptionists - all home based, good paying jobs that require BB. yes, but these are not curealls for bad local economies.We moved a huge one in locally... didn't do a blasted thing for our community. Instead, it attracted a lot of unskilled and otherwise barely employable people to work at low paying jobs that really did not make them upwardly mobile. Those people who DID advance in the company... paid their dues and improved themselves simply left the area... either to other companies or other offices of the same organization.Overall, it appears to have become more of a brain drain to our community than an improvement. Funny how that all works out. Mind you, I am NOT one of these people who wishes they weren't here.In the overall scheme of things, I think unemployment dropped a bit, and in the global view, a few people got employed and improved their lives who otherwise would not done so. It did not, however, become any great benefit to the local community, which invested millions of dollars to attract it here. The backbone of our area is small business... The real success stories have not turned out be driven by high tech, but instead by creative people thinking up ways to do stuff with what they had. Granted I live in Tampa, but I have lived in NC and CT as well. Cities and towns are struggling to compete for stores and jobs with not just other cities and towns but other nations. - Peter +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
Don't worry, Dawn :) I never for a moment thought you had any offense intended.And even if you did... heh, I certainly won't remember it tomorrow... You're all one install from being forgotten, as when I'm busy, I don't really think about the subjects on this list... Just the stuff I learn. :) +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly Mark, I did overstep my bounds a little and do apologize for the last statement in my post. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dawn DiPietro wrote: Mark, Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are describing. The term “Digital Inclusion” is used in this document to describe the goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide to better serve social and economic challenges of underserved communities, both rural and urban. If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little better. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly There are numerous studies that demonstrate that towns that lack broadband are economically deficient compared to towns with broadband. Job growth, tax base increase, home value stability, higher per capita income. The economic deficiency drives the lack of broadband, not the other way around. You can't raise the dog to life by wagging it's tail. I live in one of those towns, and have many of them in the region surrounding me. Broadband is not the issue. The economic conditions are driven ENTIRELY by other factors.Just like poor roads don't help, a lack of connectivity may be some hindrance, but building a superhighway to a depressed community will simply NOT create magic.Broadband brought to these places may have some neglible impact, but the lack is not the cause of economic problems, nor will provisioning it fix things. Unfortunately, too many people are riding this train.Politicians are holding it out as a fix ( BB access has never hurt a town's economy, of course) for things when it isn't, and lots of businessmen are exploiting that for thier own pocketbooks. The people who are being sold this are the unwitting victims. They need real solutions to other real problems, and ignoring them and offering fashionable modern services as a fix is a red herring... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
Interestingly enough, the town I used to live in, just a few miles from me, offers discounted water, garbage sewer, AND electricity as an economic incentive. Certainly, the wisdom of our forefathers in investing in future electrical production paid off handsomely in the lives of the people of the city. However, that town routinely loses businesses to across the border to a much larger town just 12 miles away, for all sorts of reasons. The biggest reasons have almost always been outside the c ontrol of the city... LAnd use laws imposed by hte state, state income tax and tax policies, and some are just physical... location, for instance. When all is said and done, I think a lot more gets said than done, but the best successes are individuals or organizations that use their brains more than average. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:07 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly I'll agree with Mark on this. There are many that are exploiting city counsel's across the country to only line their own pockets. I have read about one muni-wifi failure after another...point me to a real success story. As a percentage my guess is the failures far, far outweigh the successes. If a city wants to drive business and people to their community then how about offering free water or free garbage pickup instead of free Internet. How about offering lower taxes? Let the city offer something free to drive people into the community that EVERYONE can benefit from. After all the Internet is only for the 'rich', right? grin Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly Mark, Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are describing. The term Digital Inclusion is used in this document to describe the goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide to better serve social and economic challenges of underserved communities, both rural and urban. If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little better. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly There are numerous studies that demonstrate that towns that lack broadband are economically deficient compared to towns with broadband. Job growth, tax base increase, home value stability, higher per capita income. The economic deficiency drives the lack of broadband, not the other way around. You can't raise the dog to life by wagging it's tail. I live in one of those towns, and have many of them in the region surrounding me. Broadband is not the issue. The economic conditions are driven ENTIRELY by other factors.Just like poor roads don't help, a lack of connectivity may be some hindrance, but building a superhighway to a depressed community will simply NOT create magic.Broadband brought to these places may have some neglible impact, but the lack is not the cause of economic problems, nor will provisioning it fix things. Unfortunately, too many people are riding this train.Politicians are holding it out as a fix ( BB access has never hurt a town's economy, of course) for things when it isn't, and lots of businessmen are exploiting that for thier own pocketbooks. The people who are being sold this are the unwitting victims. They need real solutions to other real problems, and ignoring them and offering fashionable modern services as a fix is a red herring... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
anything else. So, can someone point me to a residential router that's... idgitproof? I can't find any that don't raise the price of that Alvarion radio 50 bucks or more, and even then, I haven't a smidgeon of faith in any of them. The models come and go like the wind.If I were selling telecom grade services with an SLA, you think I'd choose what I have? Of course not. But if I were, letting the customer own and run his own router wouldn't be any particular issue, then, would it? I'd reasonably expect they had in-house staff to do it, or they'd ask me to contract the service. A whole different market and assumptions. I am personally really glad to see Alvarion taking a more involved interest in the WISP market. I think they have recognized that they can learn a lot from some of the cowboys out there. Just remember that we can learn a lot from them as well. Well, I am too. Maybe they'll stop trying to dictate a network has to be run stupidly and start recognizing that the WISP market is diverse and ranges from the high end telecom type networks to low end residential, and there's one hell of a lot more residences to serve than high end customers. Heck, I don't even dream of putting business customers on a network designed and priced for profitable residential service at a COMPETITIVE price. And every customer I have so far has pretty much agreed. I tell them right up front that my competitor offers that higher end service with gaurantees and all that, and none that I am aware of has ever switched or chosen the competition.It's all about knowing who you're selling to and what you're selling. What if Alvarion got a brain fart and decided to build that good enough cpe for residential use, with all the functions of a router, with the good RF stuff they learned from the RD to make the high end stuff? Would it kill them? Heck no. The telcos, the cablecos, they know that residential has a price point, and they put far lesser crap on the desktop than what I have now. Heck, it could only HELP the market, not hurt it. I had a conversation a couple weeks ago with some people who've never heard of this list and never heard of what I use. They're offering big time financing. They asked me what's your most valuable asset and I said my customers. I passed. He said that 95% of WISP operators say my network.I have never operated under the illusion that my star-os based backbone is goign to be adequate for a large customer base. But that customer base is going to be one customer at a time, one access point at a time, with lots of them not fully built out because of where I am and what my market is like.But for now, it is adequate and by the time I need to do that upgrade... I'll have the cash flow to pay for it.And my assumptions about how long it will last, and that answering the question of how will I pay for it has proven to be not only right, but it's better than I had hoped. Heck, I'm going to have 200 customers and not even have a secretary or an office (other than my van), just a workshop / storage building and manage it just fine. Scale? Well, yes. Sufficently for what I'm doing. And, whether you think so or not, for a LOT of people serving residential broadband. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:52 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard. Aw, give it a rest, Patrick. Valemount's product runs rings around many in terms of features.So, how many MILLIONS would it take for Alvarion to produce a box that does what WISP's need it to do? Not even as much as you spend producing stuff that costs too much for some to use. So, exactly WHO is to blame when software vendor X produces what we REALLY need, hardware vendor Y produces what we REALLY need, and the people who want to have the secret black boxes with unknown guts under the hood won't listen and learn? The fact is, that the little guy... the Joe Blow Schmuck is 5 X more capable of figuring out what it is he wants than a whole team of highly paid product developers who won't listen. While you may get engineers to figure out every last possible means of adjusting the 802.11 MAC and doing
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
Patrick, I hope you understand something... I have no animosity towards anyone... But I really do want to light a fire under people. Too many companies (even me at times) gets too stuck in the box and we forget to look beyond. From our past conversations, you should realize what a large step it is for me to say I strongly consider your VL product under the Comnet program. But you have to understand that to do so has certain operational downsides for me as well. I'm not a mathmatician, but the way I see it, if my network backbone is 99% reliable, and my cpe is 99% reliable, I'm only 98% reliable. I have found that physical site issues have had far more to do with downtime and difficult installs, and customer issues, than the network at all. Generally, the network hums along wtihout intervention or attention. Customers do not. They forget passwords, they unplug stuff, they install home routers and put them on the same channel I'm on, they DO THESE THINGS. My issues have, in my unscientific estimation been: 1. Customer self-inflicted - perhaps about 20% of all things 2. Errors on my part (yeah, misconfiguring a router or other such bonehead goofs) - 15% 3. Downtime due to hardware failures: 10% - this includes power supplies, UPS, burned out batteries, etc sudden radio or networking equipment death that's really unexplained. 4. Physical failure of customer end equipment: 10%. Lightning and power issues. 5. acts of Nature: 5%. The rest is just... stuff happens. breaker burns out and takes a circuit offline and I have no power to a remote site. Bugs got into a pc case and somehow or other managed to short out the ram. Power supply burned out or otherwise just croaked. ( 3 times in months ) Wire near the storage batteries somehow got exposed to acid and just parted at a random moment. Some uknown person fired up an extremely strong signal and took down the 5 ghz backhauls, and each time I moved to clear air, so did he. Then, the interference stopped mysteriously a couple months ago. My competitor and I have been unable to locate this interference, we communicated considerably on the topic, decided it seemed deliberate, but we never found the source. BTW, it took down his Trango stuff. Competitor pulled the CPE apart and managed to mangle putting it back together, taking the customer offline. So... If you have suggestions on how to cut down on the stuff happens, that would do the most. Certainly, improved attention my part would elimenate 2, and some of 3 and possibly 4, I take my gambles, it's worked out. But if you're going to say that dramatically increased CPE quality or lifespan would transform my network's reliability... It won't. Improve? Of course. But no real big issue at the moment.yeah, I want better QOS for VOIP applications... but will my customers pay $15 more a month so I can buy them a router and higher end stuff? Probably not. So where do you thread the needle? If you had all the neato RF goodies and enhancements to the MAC, but also included routing and dynamic routing and DHCP and NAT and so on... Man, that would be one heck of a hard thing to resist. There would be no compromise other than dollars, and it's far eaiser, in my book, to compromise a small amount of dollars than it is certain fundamental network characteristics.Heck, at the lowest price you quote, there's no dollar issue to me, just a large hurdle for those smaller POP's (ap cost and some issues revolving around power consumption - my God, havn't you guys learned how to use lower power consumption stuff yet ). Heck, Trango and Motorola haven't even been considered, due to mostly the same thing. Someone asked me what I wanted that nearly 3 years ago when I was getting ready to put my first stuff up and I made a list. Someone filled the stuff on that list before you did. Now down the road with experience under my belt the only thing I really wish for that I don't have is better QOS capability for voip and a little better price. Would it really kill Alvarion to stop reinventing the wheel and base something on mass production in the outside world and apply thier skills to a full blown SOLUTION for residential use? Of course not.Are they even considering something with the capabilities of a WAR board cpe? I have my doubts.Are they stuck in the box? +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... Well that was worth staying up to read! Man, thanks Matt. ...and Mark, you might be surprised that I am harder and more pushy on our PMs about features WISPs
Re: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL
You qualify as young whippersnapper to me :) heheheheheheh +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:17 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Sigh. I guess at 42 I qualify for old man to some of you whipper-snappers! Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
- Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:52 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard. Aw, give it a rest, Patrick. Valemount's product runs rings around many in terms of features.So, how many MILLIONS would it take for Alvarion to produce a box that does what WISP's need it to do? Not even as much as you spend producing stuff that costs too much for some to use. So, exactly WHO is to blame when software vendor X produces what we REALLY need, hardware vendor Y produces what we REALLY need, and the people who want to have the secret black boxes with unknown guts under the hood won't listen and learn? The fact is, that the little guy... the Joe Blow Schmuck is 5 X more capable of figuring out what it is he wants than a whole team of highly paid product developers who won't listen. While you may get engineers to figure out every last possible means of adjusting the 802.11 MAC and doing really cool stuff with it, who's to blame for thinking we should BRIDGE our networks together?If Schmuck A can figure out how to build a workable board in China, Schmuck B can find some great working little mini-pci radios with INDUSTRY STANDARD connectors on both the cpu board and the card and Schmuck C can figure out how to put a FREE OS together and then develop some drivers to do the cool RF stuff, and all the rest of us dullard schmucks are still bright enough to figure out how to PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER and use them to dramatic advantage over what the engineers and developers keep trying to foist on us... Exactly WHO is to blame? Maybe we're collectivley to blame because we didn't pony 200 bucks up each and get some lab to FCC certify the assembly?I dunno. Exactly WHOSE fault is that?I dunno. I don't know that it's even our fault at all. Maybe the laws need to be updated to reflect the reality of the industry and the state of our technology. So then while I congratulate Lonnie's innovation, he needs to come clean and go legal. Lonnie's not doing a dang thing illegal.Well, I hope he's not. Maybe he secretly runs stop signs on some back road in a fit of legal defiance... but certainly neither you nor I would know, now would we? Sorry Lonnie, but yes if you are doing this it does gall me. It galls me when folks outside our borders go around the legal paths to our market. It's cheesy. It's dishonest. It's anti-competitive. Well, Patrick, I AM WITHIN OUR BORDERS and I am going around YOUR borders because I can produce something far better suited to what I need than all your engineers and developers combined. Now tell me, how the bloody hell that's possible?Am I some evil monster because I can install an OS on a board, snap in a minipci card, seal it up in a NEMA4X enclosure and mount it on a rooftop to get me a freaking bloody WORKING CPE One that costs more, but pays because it has the features and performance and reliability that exceeds some certified products from some manufacturers? And it's simply illegal. You've done all the work, why not go legal? If not, do you have any right to complain if someone copies your soft work and sells it as his own? Or do you think, Hey, that's different, he's damaging me! Well, hell, now you've got it all laid out for you. Will we see the $185 linux powered, changeable radio module, poe, weatherproof rooftop box, AP, backhaul, etc, w/ all the needed features Alvarion product announced on July 4, 07?With all the RF knowledge and board design and chipset experience and programming capabilities that Alvarion SHOULD have in-house, this ought to be a no-brainer walk in the park, right? You guys may not like the rules, but they are there and the rest of us have to abide by them and incur all the expense required to play by the rules. And if you are an operator reading this, do you really think staying under the legal power limit makes you righteous? It makes you no more righteous that a guy beside you on the tower that does a beautiful NEC poster child of an install but does not have legal right to use the tower. I know many find this attitude insulting and I know as a vendor I'm supposed to just hold my tongue so as not to piss people off, because there will be those who might say, Because of that attitude I've never buy one Alvarion
[WISPA] 900 Mhz and snow and Pacwireless Yagi's.
I have one 900 mhz ap and one client. When I first set up this client, we were decidedly NOT LOS and it goes through a few pine and fir trees. Im not sure that is only what is in the way.Possibly a bit of dirt, too.For some reason, I appear to have HUGE changes in RSSI. It appears when we get to around 28 or so, or below, the signal comes up to what it was when we installed. That is, around -80 to -85. When it gets warm, it appears to fall into the mid -90's... or, basically not working. Will wet snow on Pac Yagis cause signal loss? Does frozen snow on trees block less than wet (melting?) snow on trees? I'm really frustrated with this particular setup, as we've had NOTHING but trouble... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion
My experience as well.The mount is wayyy to flimsy. Equinox has some much heavier duty mounts which I hope to get my hands on in a week or two. They would fix that flimsy thing right up and make it quite solid. I have seen an example of one that wasn't for the grids, and they are incredibly solid. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion Mac, Have PacWireless made any changes to the mount on the 29db grids... I have 4 in use and the mount isn't very solid. The grid deflects a lot in the wind. I can watch the signal go up and down as it moves. Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:53 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion I do use their dishes where I have a large enough tower, water tower or a roof. I will tell ya though - - the 29dbi grids are mighty fine, much less expensive than a solid dish, wind load is no comparison as well as the ease of mounting. If you are leasing tower space - - the grid is a no brainer unless you have to have the extra db that comes with a dish. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion Are we preferring their grids to dishes? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:18 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion Mark, I have several 8 mile 5.3GHz links (YMMV) using PacWireless 26dbi grids, MT CM9's. IMHO you can't go wrong using the PacWireless antennas. I have built a wireless network that covers 12% of Louisiana utilizing their antennas exclusively for my BH. Well - I do have several of the Trango dual polarity ext's. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion I have usually used Trango backhauls, so I have not had to worry about 5 GHz antennas and what to choose. Now I'm going to try a MikroTik backhaul with a CM9. Currently, I've got two applications: 1. 2-mile link that I can perhaps use 5.3GHz over. 2. 8-mile link that I'll go 5.8GHz over. What antennas have you used to accomplish links such as these... Also, kI have heard that the output power of the CM9 in a MikroTik can be adjusted. Experience? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon. Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network... And at the end of a day with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes, I acct ually own 2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle someone. To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on someone's roof. I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due to a lightning strike - just about 6 months. My gateway and backhaul often goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio crash required a reboot. Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put together myself and you got something...really got something. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Butch Evans wrote: It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router at the CPE is necessary. BINGO. Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do... As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than our cpes, to the customer. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
- Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Right guys, I accept all that may be true but even in the DSL world, customers provide their own routers and that is certainly true of commercial customers. What planet do you live on? Every DSL service I have seen in a LONG time provides the dsl modem and router together as one device. In any event, VL does many of things for which you think make a router so critical. Even better, it does a lot of them at the RF level which makes the link and total network more efficient. Frankly though, I need one of my engineers in this type conversation; I'm just not technically competent enough on the networking side (and barely so in the nitty gritty of the RF side). You can't do routing, dhcp, firewalling, etc, at the RF level. At the same token, many here that are truly skilled remain under exposed on the RF side since most have not used truly sophisticated gear that allows for depths of tweaking beyond that which you have experienced. What I use may not be sophisticated by your standards. But if we look at the overall picture, attaching that high priced RF equipment to a linksys router is like transplanting a pinto engine and gas tank into a humvee... Frankly, I can't find that elusive somewhere between linksys and belkin and the other end where imagestream and cisco live - well, except for what I use... Which costs less and is dead reliable and excellent performing. I have never encountered an old hand who, once thoroughly exposed to our firmware in a scaled system, did not say something along the lines of, Wow, I did not know that sort of thing could be even be done! or You mean that's all we have to do to do that? That always took me hours before! Basically, I think many of you have trained and become good street racers, but you've not yet become real race car drivers because you are still driving souped up street cars not realizing a real race car actually IS different. Certainly most of us who deal with wifi-based gear are very much aware of the limitations of the rf side of this setup. It's no mystery, Patrick and I think you grossly underestimate what we understand in that regard. Perhaps alvarion c ould get into the business of providing a REAL mini-pci radio, certified with various antennas, and then we'd have the better of both worlds... Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Butch Evans wrote: It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router at the CPE is necessary. BINGO. Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do... As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than our cpes, to the customer. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
I happen to use his software, and assemble hardware from various vendors, including him. I am scrupulously careful to be within the 2.4 and 5.8 eirp rules ( well under all limits) and don't deploy wild and crazy configs. I suppose I am illegal, but then recently I visited a consultant who had a cisco AP and 1 watt amp and 12 db omni on his roof. That was to overcome the WISP's linksys (I think) router and 1 watt amp and 15 db omni a couple blocks over on their roof...To be lumped into that kind of wild and idiotic (and very illegal) bunch is rather insulting, Patrick... IF someone built a product that would perform anywhere near as well and had anywhere NEAR the features, I might consider buying it.As much as I am intrigued by your VL product, every time I look at it, I remind myself that in order to be even workable, I have to buy and configure a router at the customer's end, because as best I can tell, the CPE is just a bridge as is the AP, which makes a REAL headache at the remote sites where space and power at an extreme premium and are powered by solar or wind or a combination.Another box that has to be maintained, another point of failure, yet another box to configure and install at the customer's end. And then there has to be a router at the AP end, complete with DHCP server, or we do like others, and start screwing around with vlans, etc, in order to overcome the essential features deficit built into things like VL and Trango. When you offer that $230 - $280 client that is certified and has at minimum the following features: Full routing. (both client and AP) Bandwidth control. QOS. Firewalling. DNS server for client's use. DHCP server (both client and AP) Multiple network interfaces (just plug in the rf module for 1 to 4 radios and already contains 1- 4 ethernet ports) bandwidth or data transfer tracking ping and other utilities bandwidth testing from any point to any other point on the network RIP, OSPF, OLSR, BGP capabilities Then you may make things like Mikrotik or Star-OS obsolete.. Until then, you're peddling a half solution to WISP's - or that's how it feels to those of us who have built our networks on them. BTW, you never did answer my questions about how all the neat RF features of VL overcome, help, or prevent various issues. You mentioned a lot of adjustments, but did not explain what the effect of these things are on the things we see that affect our similar networks - if you can muck with them, but they don't do what we think we need, or if we don't understand what they can accomplish... then reciting the list amounts to ball joints as an advanced feature of a Ferarri... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:18 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Lonnie, Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware suppliers? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
They're about the same. Pac does have the extra-heavy and extra long version, and I don't know if Equinox matches that one or not. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin Keep your coax tools to yourself sir! As for the pipe, I've used both the equinox and pac wireless. Pac has a much stronger product, hands down. Unless the other guys finally caught up. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a 10 mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing. I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig... Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts. Same long arm, heavy pipe... No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive. I'll split a case with ya, if you want :) Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want :) ok ok, I won't. :) Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of Alvarion I do have to side with him on this. I just called Ben Moore at PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me. They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things. Now I have to carry FOUR tools up the ladder. Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm? Those are the same size People have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing with. If there's a standard out there, please stick with it. We have enough things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange default username/password combos! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem to manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line? It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor of choice. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin configuration. Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal! Just about a millimeter too small! When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin color code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the validation Marty. I
Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Hopefully you understand all of those:) Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below, but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not resolve the issue. I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged. While it's true that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK packets, meaning a double whammy. During periods of high noise or repetitive noise, not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to beleive that the transmission was accepted. After so many of thse failures, it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again. While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in cascade-type failure. I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more ms interruption while this cascade occurs... repettive noise, rate renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block. I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing this, as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits. There, of course, are polling type systems, and so on. Each has its perceived strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances. Thus, I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with the works will have. I have seen real world demonstrations of how differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings for many of those settings performs dramatically different. But not understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are part of the nature of 802.11 based systems. I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression, which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall life and performance of the system. I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius kind of situations - distance, colocated small cells, etc. And then the high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time, waiting for ACK packets. Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things have. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default maximum is 1023. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a 10 mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing. I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig... Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts. Same long arm, heavy pipe... No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive. I'll split a case with ya, if you want :) Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want :) ok ok, I won't. :) Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of Alvarion I do have to side with him on this. I just called Ben Moore at PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me. They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things. Now I have to carry FOUR tools up the ladder. Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm? Those are the same size People have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing with. If there's a standard out there, please stick with it. We have enough things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange default username/password combos! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem to manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line? It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor of choice. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin configuration. Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal! Just about a millimeter too small! When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin color code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the validation Marty. I suspect that some might have thought there was a catch. I almost forgot that the cable was pre-terminated. That's one of the things we don't highlight enough -- VL CPE does not require hidden extra things to buy like power supplies, cable, connectors, mounting kits, and certainly not antennas. So what's the impact overall to you business model under the AlvarionCOMNET program? Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Well we got our 1st 100 pack of VL Su's under the Comnet program yesterday- Just wanted you all to know they are the EXACT same radios as before the big price drop- Same high quality metal radio and still INCLUDES the mounting hardware AND the pre-made cat5 outdoor cable (60ft long)- the cable is worth more then you can imagine- the RJ45 plug is already factory terminated and properly shielded so your installers don't have to do that up on the roof and you don't have to worry about a bad connector later. We have deployed a LOT of these radios already and I can tell you this is a great price. I'm looking forward to Alvarion extending this program to other products. (Patrick...) Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Patrick... I find the 48V power thing a HUGE problem. almost every site I have now is 12V powered... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, You say most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them... In response to that reality we created a version of the VL AU for rural markets. We came to realize that the cost of a regular of VL AU where likely user counts are low simply was not economical. So we came up with the AUS. Three VL sectors using the AUS will support 75 users. An AUS (list of $2,595) has a limit of 25 attachments, but it can be upgraded if the demographics will support it; it is otherwise no different from a regular VL AU. Three AUS sectors will cost you about $6k, so about 2.4x your more modest three sector arrangement. The install will be easier, so that will make up a little (unless you don't count your time as a cost). But that will also support about 100mbps net so you can figure the math in terms of what can be delivered to subs at your chosen oversubscription. And you know it will do that at range LOS since the CPE has an integrated 21dBi MTI. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived It's much closer Patrick. That's for sure. Let run some numbers though. Tranzeo or Inscape Data ap: $450ish. Will deliver an honest 3 to 4 megs to almost anyone at ranges up to 10 miles. 1 to 2 megs out to 15 miles. Sector antenna, $400. Or omni and amp, $500 to $700 depending on the quality of the amp and antenna. This'll handle roughly 75 to 100 users pretty easily. If we need 3 sectors we're still at $2500 or so for the whole pop, battery backup, switch, cables etc. If we're lucky that'll even include backhaul. For CPE the cost is gonna be around: 15dB integrated antenna version (good to 3 to 5 miles) $180ish 18dB version (out to around 8 miles) $200ish $12ish for antenna brackets (I don't buy the cheap ones, only the good ones from PacWireless) $10 to $20 for cable ($.15 to $.25 per foot) Misc. nuts and bolts $20. We're at $225 $250 per sub plus labor. Connectorized version, $180ish 24dB grid antenna, $90ish (I don't buy cheap antennas, only Andrew cast magnesium (same as the Alvarion ones)) Mount, $12 Misc. nuts and bolt, tape etc. $20 Cable, $10 to $20. This one comes in closer to $350 when it's all said and done. Believe me, I understand about the long term maintenance costs too. But I've got to compete against cable, dsl, fiber to the home or all of the above in ALL of my population density centers and a lot of my rural areas. Most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them. Many are under 10. Only a few are anywhere near 50 and one serves around 100. Last year we installed over 80 new radios (some of them were for our use, some were upgrades etc.) and have, so far, around 60 new subs. This with basically no marketing effort at all, and in the face of amazing competition. Per customer there are VERY few out there that have more competitive services. Our network now spans around 6000 square miles. It's taken over 20 sites with nearly 30 ap's to do this. Our growth potential is really good. But not in all areas, some areas there just aren't any homes, so there won't be any more customers coming. We are NOT running business grade services on anyone's wifi gear. Today we're using Trango. $1200ish per ap and $300ish per cpe (averaged out). They'll deliver 8 to 9 megs of real world throughput right out of the box. Great security and flexibility. Alvarion has been loyal to WISPA and Trango's still not here though. I want to go play with the new Alvarion gear, I don't have any single area with enough growth to keep me in the program though. Even with resi. customers tossed in. If I were in Spokane, Seattle, Yakima etc. it would be a no brainer for me. The interference robustness, the scalability, the upgradeability etc. all make this a much more cut and dried decision. Especially the inference issues. I look at what we fight with out here with relatively few alien devices in the air. How guys like Forbes keep their customers running is a mystery to me. The manpower overhead has to be a killer. How do those numbers compare with a similar VL solution
Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps How do we get the anti 477 crowd to fill in their spot on the map A ratified constitutional amendment that says that congress and the FCC will stay FOREVER out of our hair. Since that's not going to happen... I would suggest conveying to the FCC just how adamant that a large array of operators are that they NOT be required to do X to be in the business of providing internet. 477 is just the nose of one of a herd of camels. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217/ap_on_re_us/northwest_storm While we experienced some very high winds, very little damage was done locally. Somewhat lesser windstorms are relatively common here in northeastern Oregon, and so there's not a large mass of damage that gets done by the big ones. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!! I hate y'all are having storms and even worse that it has knocked y'all off line at different towers. It's been almost intolerable here too: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxdetail/71269?from=yest_bottomnav_undeclared Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!! The storm here on Thursday night tore one of my sites down. ONE 2 foot dish and one sector, were not able to be supported by the galvanized pipe just 7 feet. The wind bent it over at 20 degrees... and then the guy wire snapped in the upwind direction, causing the whole thing to snap off... The guys were below the sector, which was directly below the dish, and it bent 2 pipe (I think it was 2, maybe 1.5). Either way, it bent over that pipe like nothing. The site had been through many 70+ mph storms without even being tweaked. For comparison purposes, I set up a 1 pipe and jumped on the middle, supported at the ends and could not bend it like that... (and I'm 275 lbs ) The guy wire was tension wire sold for holding up orchard trees! The pulling tension capability was way beyond 1000lbs. The site's still down, as yesterday, the wind was still screaming along at 40 mph, and we would not even attempt to raise the masting. It's under 20 feet above the barn roof, but we were afraid to get on the barn ourselves, much less attempt to raise 18 feet of pipe, antennas, and guy wires into place up on top of it. Hopefully by Sunday, the wind has died and it has not snowed again :(. When we left at 4:30 last night, the wind was still at 30-40 mph and it was well below freezing. brr... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mark Nash - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!! Wind storms came through last night. Power out at 6 sites this morning, various power companies. Started at 6 this morning...Put in 2 generators, purchased 8 marine batteries and patched them into my APC UPS units. 2 sites now still running on batteries, 2 on generators. Will be a late night I think... George, I would imagine you guys had it worse out there on the coast... Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] salary
While I was digging around in incorporating advice books, I ran across some commentary about this. It seems that if you attempt to claim only income from your stock (assuming your stock pays dividends to you ) which is taxed less than wages or salary, the IRS will arbitrarily consider a specific percentage of it to be salary for tax purposes to raise your tax liability. Now, this is focused on small corporations, not public ones, where you as the majority stockholder, have the ability to choose how to pay yourself. I believe it applies to S corp and other small and privately held corporations with working or actively engaged in the business stockholders. Doing so ( paying yourself only dividends) will result in things like audits and a lot of scrutiny of your operation and personal tax issues from the IRS, too.But since the founders of Google cannot set their own wages and that is governed by a board of directors of a public corporation, they don't face quite the same set of circumstances. Frankly, as businessmen, we should lobby for the abolition of the IRS and income taxes. While I doubt Uncle Sam's appetite for money will go away, I've read that the cost of compliance with IRS rules and regs is often significant for businesses..., and as far as large corporations go, it's usually MORE than the taxes they pay. That, and that the way we buy and sell and conduct our business is influenced far too much by tax issues. Something that gets the IRS out of our accountant's business and lets us focus purely on business as business would be better. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary I do not think any WISPs here really know the answer to this. What is needed is an answer from an accountant. If anyone on here is a CPA and can share what the rules are I would be glad to see them. I do not believe that simply drawing profits from a S corp WISP as opposed to taking a salary is tax evasion. In a S corp you pay taxes for profits same as you do for payroll. Where you might have a problem is with unemployment insurance, social security, workmans comp, etc. Those are based on payroll. Profits are not in the calculation. Essentially you are dodging those when you do not take a salary. Scriv Charles Wu wrote: snip Zero. When the CEO is also the primary investor, and the company is an S-corp or LLC, why pay payroll tax, when you can just take a repayment of loan? The salary of the CEO can be meaningless unless also disclosed wether they have an equity position or not, and of what caliber. /snip B/c when you get audited by the IRS (which for any small business, is just a matter of time), you will FINED for tax evasion... -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] salary Hi, Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;) What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue... Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!
The storm here on Thursday night tore one of my sites down. ONE 2 foot dish and one sector, were not able to be supported by the galvanized pipe just 7 feet. The wind bent it over at 20 degrees... and then the guy wire snapped in the upwind direction, causing the whole thing to snap off... The guys were below the sector, which was directly below the dish, and it bent 2 pipe (I think it was 2, maybe 1.5). Either way, it bent over that pipe like nothing. The site had been through many 70+ mph storms without even being tweaked. For comparison purposes, I set up a 1 pipe and jumped on the middle, supported at the ends and could not bend it like that... (and I'm 275 lbs ) The guy wire was tension wire sold for holding up orchard trees! The pulling tension capability was way beyond 1000lbs. The site's still down, as yesterday, the wind was still screaming along at 40 mph, and we would not even attempt to raise the masting. It's under 20 feet above the barn roof, but we were afraid to get on the barn ourselves, much less attempt to raise 18 feet of pipe, antennas, and guy wires into place up on top of it. Hopefully by Sunday, the wind has died and it has not snowed again :(. When we left at 4:30 last night, the wind was still at 30-40 mph and it was well below freezing. brr... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mark Nash - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!! Wind storms came through last night. Power out at 6 sites this morning, various power companies. Started at 6 this morning...Put in 2 generators, purchased 8 marine batteries and patched them into my APC UPS units. 2 sites now still running on batteries, 2 on generators. Will be a late night I think... George, I would imagine you guys had it worse out there on the coast... Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- 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] anyone competing with ClearWire in their market?
I heard from a customer that they have issues with distance. One of his neighbors was attempting to use their service, but it wasn't working correctly, even though it was fully LOS. As best I can tell, they're more money around here, less bandwidth, and have trouble beyond 12 miles??? Then again, that's rumor, of course. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:15 AM Subject: [WISPA] anyone competing with ClearWire in their market? I was visiting Seattle, and spoke with one of their reps. Sounds like they bought up a bunch of university 2.5 2.6 G licenses inexpensively. Anyone have feedback on how well their wimax works in NLOS environments? Thanks - Marshall -- 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] Grrrr... pigtails
Basically, we can't get them to stay on the SR9, in a WAR board, because there's only 2 positions a pigtail will fit, and both are stressed due to the pigtail's attempting to revert to the pre-installed shape (curled up in a bag...). +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] G... pigtails T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax in the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR board combination. Excellent detail to bring up. Sounds like a fastener/tiedown problem to me. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] G... pigtails Thanksgiving day, my son and I put up a future customer's CPE up in the woods. I mean, up in the mountains, log cabin, beyond phone and power. They have a generator, batteries, solar panels, etc. We did it because snow was predicted and already a little bit had fallen. We got it there, link established and was working on aiming the antenna when the laptop ran out of power. The power plug on the laptop PSU had broken and, well... we were dead. The people got back a few days later, and by then, yes, quite a bit of snow had fallen. When we had the chance to go back and finish ( plug the power in inside, hook up thier equipment) we had no signal. We tried everything we could think of, short of changing parts, because we didn't take any (wasn't our install rig, just a 4x4 so we could get through the deep snow), no signal. Yesterday, after a few days of warm, we drove in ( this time, install rig, my '89 Caravan ) digging through some deep snow going in the canyon between them and the main road. Eventually, we changed every part, including the WAR board and SR9, no signal. Then, I assembled the WAR we took out and all the parts changed out, and standing there, on the ground... I had a solid link. Finally, in pitch black dark, I climbed the ladder, had someone provide some light, and hooked up the SR9 through another pigtail to the anntenna... POOF, signal. Put the original back on... Poof, signal. then, none. Work the pigtail around so it's not tensioned and in line and put it back on... Poof, signal. I go inside, log in...and in a minute or so, watch the signal fade to nothing. T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax in the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR board combination. I found one of the crapola thing things I had rejected for 5 ghz use and put it in place... Yeah, 1 or 2 db loss in the piggy, but it stayed on... Anyone make a low loss pigtail that's flexible even in the cold? I tried two different ones, one pacwireless, one is Roger's, I think. Neither could be convinced to retain a new shape in the cold... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Grrrr... pigtails
Thanksgiving day, my son and I put up a future customer's CPE up in the woods. I mean, up in the mountains, log cabin, beyond phone and power. They have a generator, batteries, solar panels, etc. We did it because snow was predicted and already a little bit had fallen. We got it there, link established and was working on aiming the antenna when the laptop ran out of power. The power plug on the laptop PSU had broken and, well... we were dead. The people got back a few days later, and by then, yes, quite a bit of snow had fallen. When we had the chance to go back and finish ( plug the power in inside, hook up thier equipment) we had no signal. We tried everything we could think of, short of changing parts, because we didn't take any (wasn't our install rig, just a 4x4 so we could get through the deep snow), no signal. Yesterday, after a few days of warm, we drove in ( this time, install rig, my '89 Caravan ) digging through some deep snow going in the canyon between them and the main road. Eventually, we changed every part, including the WAR board and SR9, no signal. Then, I assembled the WAR we took out and all the parts changed out, and standing there, on the ground... I had a solid link. Finally, in pitch black dark, I climbed the ladder, had someone provide some light, and hooked up the SR9 through another pigtail to the anntenna... POOF, signal. Put the original back on... Poof, signal. then, none. Work the pigtail around so it's not tensioned and in line and put it back on... Poof, signal. I go inside, log in...and in a minute or so, watch the signal fade to nothing. T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax in the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR board combination. I found one of the crapola thing things I had rejected for 5 ghz use and put it in place... Yeah, 1 or 2 db loss in the piggy, but it stayed on... Anyone make a low loss pigtail that's flexible even in the cold? I tried two different ones, one pacwireless, one is Roger's, I think. Neither could be convinced to retain a new shape in the cold... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !
Call the guy, explain that his billing slipped through the cracks, and that he presently owes you for 15 months. Explain that you're going to charge the current charges to his credit card (no quibble on that) and then ask how he'd like to pay the rest of what's owing. I have some customer's who'd cut me a check. I have some who'd tell me it's my fault and no way were they paying without an argument. I had someone call me the other day, because they were to renew an annual subscription in December and hadn't gotten a bill. I dunno how or why they weren't billed, but they were in the system and flagged to be billed in December, but for some reason, no bill was printed or mailed. I like customers like that. Then there's the other guy who was 4 months behind, but didn't pay until I visited him twice. Still, your goal is to retain customers, not get rid of them. Whatcha gonna do? I'd try my best to collect, but I don't threaten anyone. I ask if they can't pay, to call me, and I'll put them on dialup speed until such time they can, and I'll even forgive past due, if need be. It costs... but it pays... My competition is real nasty with contracts and payments... This is one way I can nicely kick them in the teeth :) +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Jenco Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 3:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months ! Hi. About 15 months ago I had my main tower get hit by lightning (catastrophic hit). It took me a little while to get all of the bugs worked out with the repairs. During this time I had a customer's credit card get declined. I deactivated his card, then forgot to move him to our invoicing system. He never called to say hey - I'm not getting billed (imagine that), and I just now did a credit card check to find this problem. What would you do? a) My mistake - let it go. Bill him from the current month. b) Try to bill his CC for the full amount (ouch!!) (Our customers sign an agreement that we will automatically bill their CC monthly). c) Send him a bill for the full amount. d) Disconnect his service and let the past un-charges slide, then charge him $200 to reconnect his service. e) Any other ideas? I am opting for a above because it was my mistake. Thanks, Brad H -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] using diversity outdoors
What would be the advantage (if any) to using two antennas on the client in, connected to a CM9 and running in 'diversity' mode, where both antennas point to the same AP? I have had one client that seems to have some ugly multipath issues, and rather unstable signal levels and poor stability concerning pings. Is there any rules to follow, if I try two antennas? Thanks +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors
- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors First, if you think it's multipath try moving the antenna. I've had some as low as 2' above the ground to get the best signal and speeds possible. I've had a couple, maybe even a few, where moving 2 to 3 feet up or down (often down) seems to do the trick. We tried moving the antenna. It didn't have much effect. We tried up and down and even a little side to side... didn't mean much. I HAVE had moving the antenna just a foot upwards change an unworkable link to a rock solid stable one. Seemed it was a roof reflection, with the antenna at the peak of the roof. As for running diversity, it'll be a trial and error thing. Two things seem to happen with multipath. You could be getting a signal out of phase or polarity shifted. Or both. Well, that much I assumed. If you try it you'll want the antennas 3 to 10 feet vertically separated. You'll have to try and see if the same or cross polarity is the key for your customer. What about horizontally? All our sites are hpol. I've found that multipath seems to be really really rare in the wild. Usually it's something else. Well, viewed from the customer end, we're going over one house, between two, and just over a well-travelled road. While most customers are generally rock-steady with signal moving perhaps a db or two now and then, this one's about 10 db weaker than it should be and fluctuates constantly 2-4 db. It was improved by moving the antenna upwards 18 inches, but it's still not stable, and more vertical height is probably not in the cards. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors What would be the advantage (if any) to using two antennas on the client in, connected to a CM9 and running in 'diversity' mode, where both antennas point to the same AP? I have had one client that seems to have some ugly multipath issues, and rather unstable signal levels and poor stability concerning pings. Is there any rules to follow, if I try two antennas? Thanks +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Industry failings
Whatever happened to finding the needs of customers and fulfilling them on a sustainable and sensible basis? +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Industry failings Who says they are executing? Good installs, good equipment, lots of sites built, and happy customers are all important things, but none of them mean they are executing well. They actually need to execute against their business plan, which includes things like cash flow and profitability. Both currently stink. -Matt Maybe they have a typical biz plan: Build and tweak; then admire the potential; and hope someone will buy all that network- all the potential, all the lit real estate, all the roof rights. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 30 miles on a VAGI???
We did an install today... Started it yesterday, but had no signal, where we could see location for our AP at 11 miles. Turned out to be a bad dipole in the grid, but today, we went back, and of course, with a bad dipole we had to switch antennas... The only other antenna that was in the van was a VAGI (and it's at least a half hour's drive one way back to get another antenna), so we put it up. I wasn't on the roof, so I didn't see the actual path, but from appearances, the chimney was sorta sideswiped and I think created some multipath, becuase our signal level at the AP was bouncing wildly from 9 to 13, which is real low, and no amount of aiming could improve it. So, we swung the VAGI 90 degrees, pointed at another access point that's 29.7 (or something like that, using Google Earth's measuring) miles away... I've got 18 db margin at the AP, and 14 db at the client end (-81 client, -77 AP ). The AP is one our bird frying sectors, WRAP board running Star-OS and CM9. The client is a Compex WP54 board, running Ikarus and a CM9. Ikarus limit for ack timing is 50KM, and our measurement says we're at 48 KM. But, it works fine, and repeated tests show the throughput well exceeds the customer's sold 2M connectivity, with 20ms ping times while transferring 2.3mbit steady state. Now who was it said you gotta have amps to go the distance? +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Effect of Snow on 900
I put in a customer's CPE just as the snow season started at my customer's house in the mountains. They had around 2 inches of snow on the ground, and of course, some clung to the trees. They were gone for Thanksgiving weekend, and when they got back, it was a few days before I could get back to finish up inside. When I left, we had a nice solid link, though it went through quite a few trees right by the client end, at a total distance of about three miles, but the sky visible through the trees we had to run through. When I got back yesterday, we can't even see the AP on a site survey. The only difference is that now there's maybe a food of snow and of course, somewhat more stuck to the trees. Client and AP are both WAR boards with SR9's and 9 db yagi's. Does snow block 900 that effectively? Our testing showed earlier that in town, you can get a weak signal with a site survey even standing on the ground, through a mile or more of houses, trees, etc.We tried re-aiming, but nothing. Did I have something else go wrong, or does snow clinging to a few branches totally wipe out an additional 15 or more db of RSSI? +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IkarusOS
I have a few clients using Ikarus... They seem to work ok. Some stuff just doesn't work. I have a couple boxes that seem to have inoperable bandwidth controls or DHCP server. It's probably configuration, but I can't for the life of me figure it out. It appears to be exactly the same as the ones that do work. Odd stuff just happens. A client goes down, and a power cycle may not fix it. It might take 5 and then suddenly it works again. You're configuring a board and it just suddenly seems to vanish off your network. It might come back. It might not. Eventually power cycles will get you back. Maybe 1, maybe 10. Out of fairness to the folks at Antcor, I have ONLY used the Compex WP54 version, not any of the X86 or others, and it's the least popularly used, probalby the has had the least development and debugging. There could be issues with the Compex boards too, for all I know. Oh, and I detest the configuration program. They're moving quite rapidly, and I do expect sometime soon they'll have a pretty serious contender, but of the version I have used... It just seemed not quite ready for the big time. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: cw [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:15 PM Subject: [WISPA] IkarusOS Anybody have experiences they care to share? - cw TerraNovaNet http://www.TerraNova.Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] 305-453-4011 Think globally. Act locally. Conserve resources. -- 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] Industry failings
For those of us in the Ma and Pa category, it wasn't too hard to see this coming. I've argued since the day I first dreamed of wireless broadband, that life's lessons would serve me fine... Find a way to meet the needs of your customers, in a way that benefits THEM and you. If you can't produce a better value than someone else, find a way to do so. In the end, all the arguments about building value or revenue or whatever are mostly trivial. If you don't have a reason to exist, and if you don't have a plan to make money with reasonable assumptions, and the flexibility to change with the times, you're as obsolete as the buggy whip. I seriously doubt that anything besides the aquisition of a customer base THAT WILL MAKE YOU PROFITABLE LONG TERM matters a whole lot. Of course, the implications of that are technical competence, competitive products, and pricing and cost structures that are sane and reasonable. I operate on the assumption that my customer today will be my customer in 10 years and that he expects as good of value from what I do in 10 years as what I deliver now. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: [WISPA] Industry failings One the biggest factors holding our industry back is a lack of success on the part of the big poster children. People look at the past failures of WinStar and Teligent and wonder if new entrants can succeed. Many investors are watching FiberTower and NextLink to see if these new poster children can prove the business model. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Industry failings
I have no idea what you mean by organic growth in contrast to acquisition. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Industry failings Organic growth is difficult. Most growth is via acquisition. You have to offer Value. You have to have a Plan. You have to Execute on said plan while offering value. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Industry failings
Ok, thanks I'm 100% organic growth, here. And self-funded, too. Call it bootstrap, if you like. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Industry failings Organic Growth means creating revenue through sales and marketing. *Organic growth* is the rate of business /wiki/Business expansion through increasing output and sales as opposed to mergers /wiki/Merger, acquisitions /wiki/Acquisition and take-overs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_growth Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- 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] illegal CPE installs
LOL! Good for the cops. I just signed up a customer last week, a convert from a different system. He had a 24 db grid, using a 1 watt powered over coax amp connected at the antenna, and a linksys WET-11 attached to that through about 30 feet of LMR-400. Said it was unstable that way, which is why he switched... That calculates to a theoretical 250 WATTS EIRP. He was about 3-4 miles from the access point, with a single tree in his backyard blocking the path. I have customers at his distance using a VAGI and 16 dbm radio Which is like... 8 - 9 miles.. He had asked if I'd hook him up using his equipment... Seemed quite disappointed I switched him out and made him buy mine... I was recently asked by a couple of wireless consultants about a poorly working setup they had. It seems they have an omni on a tall downtown rooftop. It's a 9 or 11 db omni with a .5 W amp attached. Just .7 miles away, in direct line of sight, is one of their homes, which has a 24 db grid pointed right at the omni, and the connection, they said, was up and down. They wanted to know if an amp would improve the throughput, which was apparently quite... erratic. After a lot of discussion, they finally told me that a competitor has another omni IN LINE between them and the home and that they thought it was a 15 db omni with a 1 watt amp. I think I finally convinced them that they were signal overloaded, and that changing out the client end for...say.. 9 to 12 db gain antenna would probably help solve the issue... They still seemed taken aback at the notion that they needed less signal, they had assumed that a bi-directional amp was the key... I wondered why everytime I tell someone in that town I provide wireless broadband, they ask how soon I'm moving in... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:13 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] illegal CPE installs Only one warning in that advice. If the FCC takes any interest which they ususally don't (think CB) the first one they will require testing on is you. We had a person running 40 watts and a quick call around found that the FCC likes to make sure the complaintant is also above board. We've been beseiged with competitors who take the philosophy that causing us interference is their business model. I don't like them as much as any of you but we just had a person in Spokane, WA who praised the police, whom they called, for catching a burglar who was in their house. This was said as they were being hauled off to jail for a pot growing operation in the house that was being burglarized. They called Police then they went to jail. Just remember the law is looking for all abusers not just the one you want them to take out. Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Mon 11/27/2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Subject: Re: [WISPA] illegal CPE installs Me? I'd make a few calls about it. First to them. It's amazing how often management doesn't know the rules. If that won't fix it, I'd call Motorola. If that doesn't work, I'd call the FCC. The last thing this industry needs is people screwing with the one thing that the FCC has been a stickler on. EIRP is a sacred stone. Mess with it and someone at the commission will be getting pissed. Make DAMN sure you know what they are doing and with what frequencies first though. Nothing worse than making that kind of false accusation. And sometimes having someone else call the company and ask around is a good idea. If you can get me a name and number I'd be happy to make a call for you. As would, I'm sure, anyone on the wispa board. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] illegal CPE installs Travis, What's the illegality? Are they using 5150 - 5250 (indoor use only)? Are they exceeding + 30 dBm EIRP on either the AP or the SM? jack Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Curious to everyone's thoughts about a regional WISP installing illegal CPE units? They are using Last Mile Gear 120degree Canopy 120 degree sectors (5.2GHz) and then putting the Canopy 5.2GHz SM in dishes at customer locations. I am talking about thousands of CPE installed this way and doing more every day. This company covers several western states (Idaho, Utah, Nevada, etc.) and also does Dish Network satellite TV installs. Is this OK? What are everyone's thoughts? Travis Microserv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Security biting you in the ass?
One of my clients is a maker of prosthetic limbs... and he has two offices. He is covered by HIPAA considerations, so we spent considerable time trying to figure this out, using the information supplied to him, concerning HIPAA, from the feds and by trade organizations. We eventually came to the conclusion that he must encrypt any data leaving his network, or going over wireless, and that he must password his computers. At first, they were going to build a VPN between his two facilities, now they're re-thinking it and probably going to use an application service provider to meet thier data sharing needs (mostly scheduling, and some patient data) since they didn't want to pay someone to, or build thier own in-house client-server system for cooperative scheduling. They have 3 machines in the local office, which are 2 wired and 1 wireless, and his wireless is encrypted, the machines are behind locked doors, and require passwords to start up. Again, as the provider of data transport, that data MUST be encrypted before it reaches you, in order to be compliant, period. Unless you're getting involved in helping them with thier internal network, or IT system, HIPAA considerations have no impact on your network, how its run, or how secure or insecure you are, because it must be encrypted before it reaches ANY point accessible by non-approved personell. This means their internal network must be secure, machine physical security to prevent unauthorized access, etc. We came to this conclusion while doing a read through his info, and he understood it perfectly. Emailed patient data must be encrypted using something like a passworded zip file, or using an industry standard encrypt / decrypt method using keys. Client-server applications must use an SSL tunnel or session to be compliant ( like https when using web based ) even on an intranet, much less internet based. Any data leaving any physically secure location (like access from a nurses station to patient records database, where the database server is in a locked room and the nurses station is not) must be encrypted, and must require login user/password, and users must log out when not in physical control of the workstation, for instance. If the ethernet network can be plugged into in ANY phsycially insecure location, then all data on that network must be encrypted either by encrypting the data stream, or by the applications that move the data. There are no specific technological requirements for HIPAA compliance... Instead, there's a set of specific standards that start with keeping the machines physically safe from non-approved personell, and it goes from there. It's not bank or pentagon type security, but it does require thinking through the whole system end-to-end to be compliant. Again, none of this has any impact on you, as a transport provider, since everyting MUST be encrypted long before it reaches your network or it's out of compliance anyway. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:16 PM Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Security biting you in the ass? Wireless broadband security issues have now officially led to my business being put into a bad light due to perceived lack of security. I am a member of a regional broadband planning group that is working with health care and other industry sectors to help deliver broadband options to all areas that need it. Rural Health centers and hospitals are all over the region and most need access to broadband which is highly secure. I need to know what others have done to bring HIPAA compliance assurance to network administrators and hospital personnel so that your solutions are chosen and used for health care connectivity. Currently my services are not being considered do to the perception of a lack of HIPAA security compliance. I need to get on top of this right now and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I would prefer to hear from those of you who have some actual knowledge of delivering HIPAA compliant connections or those who provide equipment which has been documented to meet HIPAA compliance. Thank you, John Scrivner -- 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/
