[WISPA] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)
This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which their network is operating in. -Matt On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location. How much do these radios run and who sells them on here? Scriv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Building Heights?
Skyscrapers.com is often useful in major cities. -Matt On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Charles Hooper wrote: Hello, Does anyone know a reliable source/method of getting building heights? Something like a topographical map that included buildings would be excellent, but I haven't been able to find anything like this. Thanks! Charles WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] BIP/BTOP
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 NTIA and RUS will grant a limited extension of time to file infrastructure applications in the second funding round. Specifically, applicants for BTOP Comprehensive Community Infrastructure projects will have until March 26th to file their applications to NTIA. Applicants for BIP infrastructure projects will have until March 29th to file their applications to RUS. Applications in NTIA's two other project categories - Public Computer Centers and Sustainable Broadband Adoption - remain due on March 15th. -Matt On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: I don't see anything about that listed on broadbandusa.gov. The only posting for today is the latest winners from round one. Where are you looking? Chuck On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:51 AM, ccoo...@intelliwave.com wrote: For those of you following the game, BB USA advises that they have extended the deadline on both BIP and BTOP applications. Chris Cooper Intelliwave This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee? From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Clear
They have to do something. If they don't start adding customers soon their first mover advantage is going to be lost. -Matt On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Jayson Baker wrote: They've met with our datacenter folks and been on the roof numerous times. To me, that says they're getting ready to make some sort of move. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Dylan Bouterse dy...@corp.power1.comwrote: Interesting. They are installing equipment on towers in our area (after having leases for 4+ years) but I'm not seeing Orlando as a current or future area. Actually I'm not seeing future areas (just in the legend). Maybe I have the wrong map. http://www.clear.com/coverage Dylan -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:20 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Clear In looking at Clear's web site, they have a green for areas that are covered now and a dark grey for future coverage. Does anyone know how quickly they expect to fill that coverage? How quickly they'll expand beyond their future coverage? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] new FCC report out
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf * 35% percent of americans unserved * We need to tackle the challenge of connecting 93 million Americans to our broadband future, said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement timed with the release of the survey. In the 21st century, a digital divide is an opportunity divide. * 29% stated they received service from a fixed wireless provider ** Notwithstanding the possible confusion reflected in the survey responses, it seems likely that the vast majority of home broadband access is wireline. In fact, estimates place wireless home broadband access at 2 percent of homes—that would include fixed wireless or satellite service. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool for 477 reporting data at the tract level
You raise the money. I'll do the programming. WISPA can keep the money. -Matt On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: I would be glad to start a $$ pool to have someone develop a tool for WISPA members to get the data we need for the form 477. On second thoughts - - it would be better if we allowed everyone to use it (members and non members) if we could just get them to report! Mac -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:48 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA List'; 'Motorla List Beehive'; 'WISPA Board' Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool for 477 reporting data at the tract level WISPA will gladly place this on our webpage if we can find someone to help get it in place. Thanks, Rick From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:20 PM To: WISPA List; memb...@wispa. org; Motorla List Beehive; WISPA Board Subject: [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool for 477 reporting data at the tract level I just found this web page that talks about a free API that could be used on a web page to do address lookup/geocode as well as map to the proper census tract and/or census block. I'm not a programmer but maybe someone on the list could look at this and put together something that could be used. Ideally it would do both single and batch lookups. If there is a way to also standardize the address fields to increase the accuracy that would be a big plus. https://webgis.usc.edu/Services/Geocode/WebService/GeocoderWebService.a spx Thank You, Brian Webster No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2691 - Release Date: 02/17/10 07:35:00 --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2694 - Release Date: 02/17/10 22:30:00 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Regulators may drop broadband line-sharing bombshell
I don't think this is good. The last time it was tried we got a bunch of unsustainable business models along with increasing gamesmanship from the ILECs. Besides, the RBOCs are looking for reasons to shutdown their wireline operations anyway. This will only speed that up. I think we need smarter policy to increase competition. How about fair and reasonable real estate access? WISPA should be all over that one. I know every business WISP has run into an unreasonable landlord. I also sure plenty of residential WISPs have had their share of landlord problems. -Matt On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/regulators-may-drop-broadband-line-sharing-bombshell.ars?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=rss Could be good? Scottie Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
Central is better. I like not losing a day for travel. I thought St. Louis was suggested at one point, which seems like a decent idea. -Matt On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: I personally like central shows because less travel time and less time zone change for all America attending. As well, this even is targeted as a RURAL conference, and might make sense for it to be closer to more Rural market. I'd argue there are more Rural locations in the Western States. But Orlando is one of the lowest cost venue places for shows in a major market (after considering all extra costs) and Flights are always pretty cheap, even from the west coast. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show Tickets to Orlando for me are dirt cheap. Always have been. From KY to Orlando for the FISPA conference next month it's only $222 roundtrip. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jayson Baker Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show You're wanting to go on a family vacation? I thought this was to be a WISP conference. Like, for WISP operators. I, personally, have no intention of spending that much for airline tickets, and going to play with Mickey Mouse while I'm at a conference. On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Dylan Bouterse dy...@corp.power1.comwrote: Orlando! We have the 4 Disney parks, Universal Studios, Blue Men, Sea World, I-Drive area, Kissimmee area and a WHOLE lot more. I'm not aware of any zip lines though. :oP Dylan -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:29 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show Phoenix. Dry and warm. *OR* I live 5 minutes up the hill from a world class casino and hotel complex. http://www.meskwaki.com/ I could host, and you could take turns climbing my towers, and riding the zip lines here at Gilly Hollow. One of them is a terror at 750 feet. Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:18 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show I'm the same. If Vegas, I'd pass. Having shows in Vegas isn't about the show, it's about Vegas. The show is just the vehicle to use to get there. A show in Vegas has become a cliché. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Kelley Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show I was just in Vegas for the Ubiquity meeting If you are planning to take your family anywhere - VEGAS is not the place - IMHO When you get off the plane and exit the airport you are handed pamphlets for prostitutes to come to your hotel room from $25/ hr Having 3 daughters and 1 son ... I can tell you - this is hardly the place I would like to take my family on vacation. Disney sounds better ;-) Of course this is all business - - going out to Columbus, Philadelphia, Indy, Chicago, Denver - yeah - much nicer... _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Randy Cosby wrote: Next time, drive up to Mesquite (1.25 hours) or St. George - Great rooms / prices you can feel good about taking the family to. :) Randy On 2/4/2010 9:12 AM, Eje Gustafsson wrote: *shudder* Reminds me of WISPCon in Vegas. The WISPCon hotel screwed up my families reserveration. Roadeo show in town and one other large conference. There was not a hotel room in entire Vegas, Henderson or anywhere close enough to drive to. Got to the hotel around 7pm to find out there was no available room for us. We called probably 100 different places and visited probably another 40+ places, pleading and begging for a room. We didn't even find any rooms at the ones that only rented per week. Me, my wife, one baby and one toddler. Finally about 2:30am we gave up and ended up sleeping in our rental minivan on the parking lot. In the middle of the night by accident set of the car alarm. Got kicked off
Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
Seems like a logical position if the purpose of the show is to drive WISPA membership. Maybe the existing members want a show for another purpose. -Matt On Feb 8, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote: While I initially had the same concerns you had and was not even that personally impressed in our meeting with their promoters, I eventually decided it was the way to go for one reason, membership. Yes our trade needs a good show but I did the math, If we sent out 2000 invitations to the WISP-DIRECTORY list we might get about 3-400 people in our trade. Of those likely 200 would be our own members and likely we would add about 100 new members tops. With this other show we stand the chance at being exposed to 1500 attendees, forging this new alliance would help to cement our integrated interests and have them start recommending their area WISP's, that's great for our membership. Also we might get their interest in joining so potentially adding hundreds of new members to WISPA. Even if they are affiliate members that still adds up to more than we get at our own show PLUS it would be more inviting for the other 1800 wisps to have something other than just us there. It just seems like an easier sell to WISP 's who aren't in WISPA, it might push a lot of business to our members and we potentially could see a much greater membership increase than if we did our own. That versus the hazard of losing money when we would rather spend it on filings and true WISPA business, that's my thinking anyway. Also for those who have stated we have made up our minds, those people are just people stirring s^t, they speak from no fact whatsoever and just like to say the board just does what they want, it's crap, untrue. We've been very transparent and this debate is us taking that input and using it to weigh heavily in our decision. It's a huge decision, easy for members to say hey you put on your own show but just think about the work that would put on a volunteer board versus the idea of what I stated above. Most opinions I've read have been self serving ones, 'put it five miles from my house' kind of thing. We're trying to serve the entire country and those with the middle America approach are very valid for that reason. We'd really enjoy hearing these kind of ideas but if we sit here and argue where all day we'll never get to put it on and yet another WISPA initiative gets buried in minutia, as a board this is exactly what we are trying to stop. Forbes WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I am afraid you will have to be disapointed. I know that American Thinker has a point of view...but what SPECIFICALLY did they get wrong? It doesn't matter what was right or wrong in the article you cited because even if everything was right the article didn't conclude, imply, or even suggest that the CRA was the cause of the housing crisis. That article was squarely placing the blame on Fannie and Freddie. Again, for someone who has seen plenty of research please cite it. You could also just withdraw your statement in light of the facts and research shared. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S L crisis. I mention this only to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure all without having any interest in the underlying securities. Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the housing crisis. Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed. The borrower could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission. Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. But many are conscience business decissions on their investment. Why do you think Obama decided to help Middle class save their homes, while they let the most needy loose their homes? A Interest rate savings canbe justified as a clear business decission that might influence the middle class
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
That is factual incorrect. Only minor changes were made to CRA under Clinton. It was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act also under Clinton that required Fannie and Freddie to securitize a certain percentage of CRA mortgages. Again, only a fraction of the bad mortgages that caused the housing crisis were subject to CRA. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton. This is a far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper, this could not have happened. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S L crisis. I mention this only to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure all without having any interest in the underlying securities. Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the housing crisis. Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the biggest reason people default
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital. There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste of time. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality
You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up. Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with you on-list Matt. The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen. There are certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest. I will agree with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their titles that bellied up to the trough. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital. There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste of time. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its customers own best interests. If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers through its actions. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's roleinregulationofnet-neutrality
What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA? Is your response to facts that challenge your position to simply change the subject? I worry you formed your position without proper research. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie and Freddie. Few of them do their own underwriting anymore. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's roleinregulationofnet-neutrality You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up. Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with you on-list Matt. The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen. There are certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest. I will agree with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their titles that bellied up to the trough. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital. There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste of time. -Matt -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
I won't attempt to prove a negative. It was you who made the claim CRA caused the housing crisis. It is therefore incumbent on you to prove the claim. This is especially true since you have provided no basis for your claim. I have provided facts related to the CRA that have not been refuted by you or anyone else.. Now then, here is your chance. Back up your claims. Refute the facts I have provided. Provide at least a theory as to how the CRA caused the housing crisis. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I've seen plenty of research Matt. You ask for proof from me and you've provided none yourself. If you want to provide the basis for your statements and have an argument, let's have it. We'll probably have to do it off-list, since I'm sure everyone is getting tired of this, as am I. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA? Is your response to facts that challenge your position to simply change the subject? I worry you formed your position without proper research. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie and Freddie. Few of them do their own underwriting anymore. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's roleinregulationofnet-neutrality You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up. Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with you on-list Matt. The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen. There are certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest. I will agree with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their titles that bellied up to the trough. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital. There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste of time. -Matt - - -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - - -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
That's it? Your basis against the CRA is a partisan blog post? Really? The guy's article doesn't even lay the blame at the CRA's feet. It is more a commentary on Fannie and Freddie. I am pretty disappointed. I expected that someone who has seen plenty of research would have shared something that counts for research. Something like http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136 done by Minneapolis Federal Reserve Economists. or Comptroller of the Currency: http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm or FDIC Chairman Shelia Bair: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Here is a nice timeline for anyone that wants to read it. I'm done with this on-list: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality I won't attempt to prove a negative. It was you who made the claim CRA caused the housing crisis. It is therefore incumbent on you to prove the claim. This is especially true since you have provided no basis for your claim. I have provided facts related to the CRA that have not been refuted by you or anyone else.. Now then, here is your chance. Back up your claims. Refute the facts I have provided. Provide at least a theory as to how the CRA caused the housing crisis. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I've seen plenty of research Matt. You ask for proof from me and you've provided none yourself. If you want to provide the basis for your statements and have an argument, let's have it. We'll probably have to do it off-list, since I'm sure everyone is getting tired of this, as am I. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:29 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA? Is your response to facts that challenge your position to simply change the subject? I worry you formed your position without proper research. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie and Freddie. Few of them do their own underwriting anymore. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's roleinregulationofnet-neutrality You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up. Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with you on-list Matt. The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen. There are certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest. I will agree with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their titles that bellied up to the trough. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: The underlying point still holds true; big
Re: [WISPA] BGP Load Balancing Help
Prepending is no longer the desirable solution and should only be used if your upstreams don't support a better way. The preferred way is to adjust local preference based on a route policy. You can simply prefer your fiber circuit if you want or adjust it on an AS basis. You will likely only want to consider the major carriers when doing this. For example, just the top ten carriers. You of course can only adjust local preference on your side affecting outbound traffic. To adjust local preference on the carrier side to affect inbound traffic you will need to have a carrier that supports communities. See http://onestepconsulting.net/communities/ for a good listing of carriers that support BGP communities. -Matt On Jan 17, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote: The simplest way is to prepend the DS3 circuit. Scott Vander Dussen wrote: On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits: DS3 @ 45mb/s Fiber @ 100mb/s The DS3 is routed more efficiently (less hops) and the fiber less efficient (more hops). Since the BGP is routing traffic based upon number of hops to final destination only, the DS3 gets 95+% of all our internal traffic. What can I do to shift some (or even possibly all) of the traffic to the Fiber to balance things out? Thanks in advance. `S WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wimax gear - licensed bands btw
Many of those licenses had serious restrictions, which is why the auction reverse was so low in the first place. -Matt On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Charles Wu wrote: Speaking of which, did anyone notice the results of the latest BRS Auction (#86) Licenses went for an average of $0.03 / MHz POP That means if 60 MHz covering 100,000 people (as defined by Census 2000 numbers) would have gone for $180k -- with the small business 35% credit - that means a WISP would've paid $117k for that spectrum While $117k is nothing to sneeze at, it's just worth noting that getting a license is not something unreasonable or unobtainable for the small guy -Charles WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] stimulus announcements thus far
A $33.5 million grant to the North Georgia Network Cooperative for a fiber-optic ring that will bring high-speed Internet connections to the northern Georgia foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. The project will serve an eight-county area with a population of 334,000. A $25.4 million grant to the Biddleford Internet Corp., a partnership between the University of Maine and service providers, to build three fiber-optic rings across rural Maine. The network will pass through more than 100 communities with 110,000 households and will connect 10 University of Maine campuses. A combined grant/loan of $2.4 million to the Consolidated Electric Cooperative in north central Ohio to build a 166-mile fiber network that will be used, among other things, to connect 16 electrical substations to support a smart grid project. A 4G wireless network to be built by an Alaska Native Corporation in southwestern Alaska, a fiber-to-the-home project in a remote corner of New Hampshire and computer centers for 84 libraries in Arizona. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] stimulus announcements thus far
See the highlighted projects here... http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/20091217-recovery-act-investments-broadband.pdf -Matt On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:20 PM, David E. Smith wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 13:24, Robert West robert.w...@just- micro.comwrote: So how did it get through? :) The grants were reviewed and scored by independent volunteers (I was one), who scored each of them using a fairly complex rubric. It covered things like does this meet one of the government's broadband deployment and economic stimulus goals, of course, but there also were a lot of points for things like is this budget realistic and will this technology actually do what the applicant says it will. Obviously, the volunteers' scores weren't the only factor considered by NTIA, but I'm proud to have been a bit of a nonsense-filter. Obviously I can't talk about any of the specific applications I reviewed, but the five applications, totaling over 1000 pages, had a couple doozies in there. Some folks were interested in trying to build out broadband, others were pretty clearly just making a cash grab. I'm hoping I was able to do a little bit to help the former and quell the latter. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, would you mind clarifying.When you said... have not the left the business, did you mean I don't mind clarifying, but I am not sure what the interest is. 1) Have not left OneRing/RapidLink, and are involved in a non-employee capacity. or that 2) Have not left the Wireless Industry. I have not left the wireless industry. The simplest way to describe my status with Rapid Link is to state that it is what was before except I am no longer on the board and am not an employee. Rapid Link did file an 8-K when I resigned from the board. Further, they have also filed that they entered into a merge transaction and subsequent management agreement. If you are interested in Rapid Link there is plenty of SEC filings to read. When you said... I cant talk about it, did you mean 1) You cant talk about your status at OneRing/RapidLink or that 2) You cant talk about what you are doing now.. I can't talk about what I am doing now. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:29 AM, rwf wrote: Oh? So you are still a WISP then? What is your company called? Guess your filter still isn't working then. I am not a WISP and never have been. If you think you know something and would like to get yourself and others in trouble then by all means post away. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
I can't reread what you said. I can however reread what you wrote. I suggest you do the same. You state that you weren't commenting on the whole healthcare debate. Yet you were responding to a thread that was specifically a healthcare debate. Thus, it is reasonable to take your comments in the context of the overall debate. Further, I understand your comment was limited to your personal experience with Cuba. As I stated though, such anecdotes may be true, but are meaningless in the larger debate. While you may have meant only to share your personal experience with Cuba you ended up presenting a standard straw-man argument that has been used throughout the debate. If you don't want people to interpret your comments in the larger context of the debate you are participating in then I suggest stating that or simply don't comment. Now with specific regard to Cuba... Here you have a nation that is estimated to be the 70th largest economy in the world and ranked directly behind the largest economy in world in terms of healthcare. Maybe the rankings are flawed. Maybe Cuba lies about their statistics. Maybe they provide good healthcare to some and deny it to others. I don't really care since I have no desire to emulate our healthcare after Cuba. But, it is telling that such a poor country can do so well and a rich country like ours can do so poor. -Matt On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:08 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, Please reread what I said. I wasn't commenting on the whole healthcare debate. I was talking about Cuba. CUBA CUBA CUBA. Do you get it now? Just CUBA. Reread the original post and get off your high horse. Have you noticed everyone else stopped replying to you. Everyone else, sorry, that's my last post on this topic no matter what Matt says next. Greg On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I speak Spanish. I know Cubans and I know a lot of people who have been to Cuba. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not refuting all those other countries statistics. I thought you wanted debate of the facts. Or do you just want us to sit at your feet and listen? I do want to debate the facts, but you are responding with anecdotes. This is a standard straw-man used throughout the healthcare debate. I know person X from country Y that says this or had such and such happen to them. Such a statement can be true, but it is meaningless in the context of the debate. Such a situation needs to be statistically significant to matter. All systems have their flaws as no one believes a perfect system exists. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, MDK wrote: As I stated before... Medicare reimburses such low amounts, that ever doctor, hospital, clinic, lab, etc, that accepts it does so at a loss. Not just no profit but at a loss.Not only that, but Medicare has the highest level of financial fraud, period. It's very efficient... at giving away money for nothing, and yet, at the same time, has created the single largest pick the pocket of someone else program to exist. Cite your sources. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, MDK wrote: I'm sure you're a nice guy... But you're trying to convince a lot of people who know better by long years of experience, that life would be beautiful and all will be fine, if we just give Congress a few more trillion dollars a year of our hard earned money. I am pretty sure that wasn't his position. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 9, 2009, at 12:20 AM, MDK wrote: Every country with a government run medical system Denies routine medical care, extraordinary medical care, or expensive medical care on a routine basis. This is why babies delivered by the NHS hospitals in Britain are less than 90% born in a hospital room or delivery room. The rest are born in hallways, waiting rooms, streets, cabs, or ambulances because there are no available rooms.And, this number hasn't changed significantly in years and will not change, because the government simply hasn't enough money to expand facilities. What is your point? Every private insurance company in the US denies routine medical care, extraordinary medical care, or expensive medical care on a routine basis. This is why in some cities in Canada, the wait for the assignment of a personal physician can take up to 5 years.The government can't hire enough doctors, and those that are hired have no incentive to take on greater case loads. That would likely happen here as well if the entire population had access to healthcare. What isn't clear from your statement is that while true it is believed to only affect 5% of the Canadian population. Whereas around at least 15% of americans are in the same boat since they don't have insurance. This is why Veterinarians in Canada have near instant access to MRI machines, while people do not.Veterinary services are free market, people's service are socialized. I think your point is that if you pay for the MRI you can get it immediately. This is true for people in Canada as well. In every case, the government balances it's books by simply denying services or delaying services to people. Sounds like our private insurance companies only their books have to also balance the profit they need to deliver to their shareholders. I mean, it's so easy, once the government has to decide, not you having to decide whether you have to sacrifice for charity, your conscience and self righteousness can remain fully intact - it won't be YOUR fault they died like my mother did, because Medicare refused treatment, right? After all, Medicare denies treatment to covered patients MORE than any other insurer, public or private, in some cases by more than 5 times as many denials as private insurance.Yet, Medicare has the largest percentage of fraudulent payments of any insurer, BY FAR.But, hey, if it's the government's responsibility, we're morally relieved of any personal responsibility for those who suffer for a lack, right? Cite your sources. Or, are you going to tell us that government can buy unlimited health care for everyone? No one thinks they can. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
failure to pull out our wallets and give to help the needy, but if someone dies because they themselves could not afford to pay for it (as opposed to the agency budget not having the money), we get to get all righteous and get on our soapbox and yell rants and raves and excoriate those selfish bastards who are refusing to give Congress a few more trillion dollars a year to spend in ways to benefit themselves politically. I mean, it's so easy, once the government has to decide, not you having to decide whether you have to sacrifice for charity, your conscience and self righteousness can remain fully intact - it won't be YOUR fault they died like my mother did, because Medicare refused treatment, right? After all, Medicare denies treatment to covered patients MORE than any other insurer, public or private, in some cases by more than 5 times as many denials as private insurance.Yet, Medicare has the largest percentage of fraudulent payments of any insurer, BY FAR.But, hey, if it's the government's responsibility, we're morally relieved of any personal responsibility for those who suffer for a lack, right? Or, are you going to tell us that government can buy unlimited health care for everyone? -- From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:59 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance And I guess because you know someone from Canada/Britain/France/ Spain/ etc that swears the healthcare is worse then they make it out to be and that the US is where everyone with money goes then it must be true. Let's all just ignore study after study that shows every single first world country has it better than the US. Sure, I'll believe Cuba is hiding the real story. What about the other 30+ countries that have better healthcare at a lower GDP cost? Are they lying too? -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:50 AM, rwf wrote: Matt- Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list. It is not my debate. I believe the list was discussing this for at least 3 days before I made my first post. When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active. I'll take that as a compliment. Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I understand you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still are. I suspect the majority of us are here for discussion regarding WISP related issues. Matt Larsen recently posted on the relevance of the discussion to WISPs. I can't speak to your incorrect understanding regarding my activity in this industry. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring as an employee, but I have not left the business. Ralph likes to speak out of turn. -Matt On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Brad Belton wrote: Matt's not in the business anymore? News to me. I thought he was with Rapid or Ring something or another? Not anymore? If true, that really is interesting... Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rwf Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest Matt- Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list. When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active. Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I understand you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still are. I even made a filter but you keep slipping through. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] What the heck is Matt doing now?!? WAS: Re: Insurance
I can't talk about anything of the things I am involved in currently. Maybe in the next few months things will change. I do expect they will benefit the industry though. -Matt On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Ryan Spott wrote: WOW! What ARE you doing now Matt? I really enjoyed your talk at the *last* ISP-Con. ryan On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Chuck Profito cprof...@cv- access.comwrote: Well Matt, Just what are you doing after One Ring? Where are you hanging out, what does your virtual shingle say? Are you writing I Phone apps? New bikini code? A new mac maybe? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring as an employee, but I have not left the business. Ralph likes to speak out of turn. -Matt On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Brad Belton wrote: Matt's not in the business anymore? News to me. I thought he was with Rapid or Ring something or another? Not anymore? If true, that really is interesting... Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rwf Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest Matt- Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list. When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active. Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I understand you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still are. I even made a filter but you keep slipping through. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
History should be a guide; not a box. Our country has proven that our system of government and its attitude towards the free market is unmatched by any other system of government past or present. However, multinational corporations are something new that our system is having a hard time with. This is because a perfect capitalist is a monopolist and monopolies destroy innovation, which is the heart of our country's success. Healthcare is tough because it allows for so many straw-man arguments that real debate is lost in the noise. Further, healthcare is now a global concern, so the actions of other nations impact our own. What I would like to see is a real debate that leads to a solution. Businesses simply can't sustain the increasing cost of healthcare and neither can their employees. Right now we have the scariest of all worlds whether you are a liberal or a conservative. People without healthcare aren't healthy and cost us all too much. Doctors have to employ more people to deal with insurance company bureaucracy than to actually provide healthcare. Further, as a percentage of GDP we spend the most and get the least. -Matt On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:29 AM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Owen, I think maybe what you're missing is the historical perspective. Our history is people left Europe which was mostly feudal with kings and rulers dictating the details of people's lives and these people came here to be free. Collaboration is needed so the whole can exceed what the mere individual is capable of but as is evident in the constitution the founding fathers were trying to have just enough, just the bare minimum of government needed to all that to happen. That's why according to the constitution the federal government's roll is only supposed to involve national security and interstate commerce. At one point in time the US government felt it was necessary in order to provide good telephone communications to force there to be only one national telephone company (the streets were getting cluttered with wires and clearly none of the little companies would ever cover the entire nation). Some years later the government felt it was necessary to break up that telecommunications company (the divestiture) and allow competition in those markets. Both decisions were right at the time. Certain aspects of socialism have merit and if you exclude a few totalitarian regimes no socialist country is purely socialist without any private property or capitalism, and all mainly capitalist countries have some social programs. So it comes down to how much is right. Most people feel we need Medicare, VA hospitals and other things you mention below (we're a compassionate people though the majority would say those things need fixing) but it's a big leap from a medical system which takes care of the elderly and honored veterans to a healthcare system for everyone. And from what I've heard (I watch Glen Beck and Jon Stewart so I know I'm getting both sides) there's some language in the government's proposals which clearly makes their thing an option. It sounds more like an offer you can't refuse when they say you can only keep your current private insurance if you don't make any changes or else you default to the government system. What the majority of Americans want is freedom even if it's dangerous (think 2nd amendment). Greg On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Owen Harrell wrote: I keep reading what everyone is saying about government and insurance, but I don't really believe you. Most of you say that you are against the government getting involved in health care, that it is a Socialist idea. What I haven't heard is any of you saying you wanted to stop Medicare or Social Security or shut down the VA hospitals. Why not? These are Socialist programs. These are Government run programs with no choice to purchase it from the private market. Why haven't you said to stop those programs? You say you believe in the Free Market, but I do not see you asking to stop regulating electricity, or natural gas. Only if we let these companies truly charge whatever they wanted to would it be a free market. Most of you claim to be Christians, but you do not really believe what you preach. A true Christian always wants to help those that are less fortunate than yourself. Well I believe that includes health care. Or does it mean you can pick and choose who should be helped and who shouldn't. Yes, I have had insurance almost my whole life. Some was paid for by my employer, some has been paid for by myself. What I have seen is premiums go up every year. However, the health of this nation ranks in the 30's among other nations. We live 3-7 years less than countries with health care. Does that mean National Health Care will be perfect? I do not
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Not sure where you got this info Matt. I've seen just the opposite. In Mississippi they had lost most of the OB/GYN docs. They are now getting what they need since they enacted tort reform. You've seen or read the studies? Because the studies are very clear on this. Remember, exceptions don't prove the rule. The cost of malpractice, jury awards, and defensive medicine are massive. Indeed, but no better viable system of checks and balances in healthcare has yet to emerge. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Brad Belton wrote: Agreed. Tort reform will help save healthcare costs and enable more doctors to practice their trade. My doctor just shut down his practice of 20-30 years and let his entire staff go due to the cost of business growing out of control. Go get his income statement and you will find where the costs where. It wasn't malpractice that drove him out of business. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1 The article certainly shares some facts and anecdotes regarding the 2003 Texas tort reform. However, it doesn't point to any research that ties cause and effect. What I find interesting about the Texas case is that Texas has one of the best and most thorough databases regarding insurance claims. The idea behind the 2003 tort reform was to stop the excess malpractice problems. However, we now know there wasn't actually a problem. See http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/clcjm/stability_release.pdf , which references a study released in 2005 that found, Recent spikes in medical malpractice premiums in Texas were not caused by rising payouts on claims or rising jury verdicts. The study looked at data between 1988 and 2002 i.e. before the 2003 tort reform. Additionally, the proponents of tort reform claim it will lower insurance costs. Yet in Texas insurance premiums rose the 3rd fastest nationally. Unfortunately, tort reform is a red herring when it comes to healthcare costs. The estimates right now are that jury awards for malpractice cost about $3.6 billion annually, while we spend $2.3 trillion annually. That would mean jury awards count for .001% of our healthcare costs. Some would argue there is more than jury awards to malpractice cost. To that end, a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded. Then there is insurance giant WellPoint that released its own report detailing what it thought was the source of increased costs, which doesn't conclude malpractice is a major issue. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS137490+27-May-2009+PRN20090527 . -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Andy Trimmell wrote: Kinda like when I was home schooled as a kid and my parents had to pay school taxes for public school? Only makes sense that we'd again pay twice for another public option. Good analogy. I don't think your parents had to pay twice. They could have sent you to public school. This why the analogy breaks down. A more reasonable analogy would be an existing public service that is augmented or replaced with a private one for personal reasons. Maybe owning a car when public transit is available. Or living in a gated community with security when there is a police force. Or having a bottled water service in addition to your regular water service. Or using a private toll bridge to shorten a trip as compared with using the public road. These are all examples of the private option being used because of personal circumstances even though a public option exists. I personally would like to see something more like the post office. This is a public organization that is self-supported. Yet UPS and FedEx are viable companies offering a private choice. I like how online retailers have learned to mix and match the post office with UPS and FedEx to minimize their shipping costs and yet still get their products to consumers effectively. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
Those other countries that have better health outcomes and a longer life expectancy have taken profit out of healthcare. Further, their doctors are smart and spent a lot of time and money going to medical as well. Most did it for the same reasons as doctors here. And many get paid well like you would expect a doctor to. Of course, they don't have to deal with insurance companies or have huge staffs of people try to collect on fees. -Matt On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:30 PM, ccrum wrote: Take the profit out of health care and the quality will go with it. Would you do your job for what the gov will pay? Maybe you haven't noticed, but it takes a smart person and a whole lot of hard work to get into and get through medical school in the US. If there is no incentive above helping my fellow man, then you will see a mass exodus of the best people in the field. I know several doctors (specialists too) who are already looking at plan B in case of a government takeover of the health care sytem. Cameron Robert West wrote: Exactly. We are the one and only industrialized country (with whatever industry we might have left) who puts profit in healthcare. As you stated, their goal is to NOT pay and they can and do come up with anything they can find to do that. Profit has no place in healthcare. Single payer is the only thing I see working. As far as increased taxes to pay for it, we already are paying for it and getting zero bang for our buck. As George from the great white north said, healthcare shows up nowhere in his budget. They just pay extra in taxes. Medicare for all. End of the controversy. Simple. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sharples Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance One of the basic probems IMO is that the whole idea of medical insurance, as currentlky implemented, is fundamentally flawed. Consider selling ISP services under the model of broadband insurance. Under that model, your customer would pay you a certain amount per month in case he needs broadband, and you would do your best to find reasons to deny him access. Or how about housing insurance instead of monthly rent. You pay the landlord a certain amount every month in case you need shelter and he oversubscribes a number of his units and hires guards to keep people out on various pretexts. Sound completely ridiculous, yet unless you're in an HMO like Kaiser that's the system we have now. What we need is universal (private or public) access to medical care, healthy lifestyle incentives, and the elimination of stupid laws that only serve to increase the costs of medical care and prescription drugs to US consumers, restrict free-market access across state and international lines,create incentives toward excess consumption and CYA medical pratices, and only serve to increase the costs of medical care and prescription drugs to US consumers. Tom S. - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance Someone posted earlier that the health insurance industry is not truly run in a free market. It's failure is exactly due to this. Even after all the government rules and regulations, who in the USA does not have access to health care? On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM, David E. Smith d...@mvn.net wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 16:42, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: The free market really does work. We use it daily in our business... Now imagine if we used it for health care, too.We know how to do that, don't we? There is a fundamental difference between broadband Internet and basic medical care, and the fact that tens of millions of Americans have better access to the former than the latter shows that in this instance the free market has failed miserably. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: If Cuba is so good, why do they rank below the US? Mostly likely because they are such a poor country and can't spend much money on healthcare. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: You can't have it both ways. The survey (which is flawed, but it was brought up) says that Cuba rates below the US. Did you read how the numbers were come up with? I guess I don't understand how I am expecting it both ways. You asked why Cuba is ranked lower and I answered. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Exactly. Bernie Madoff went to jail because of his Ponzi scheme, why didn't FDR for social security? Well, other than the obvious of him dieing. Maybe you don't realize that Madoff fraudulently mislead investors whereas social security is a government mandate. Of course, this has been refuted by many others; see... http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ponzi.htm http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2009/07/21/is-social-security-a-giant-ponzi-scheme.aspx http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm I challenge you to take a supportable position that can actually move the healthcare debate forward. Again, I believe it is people like you that keep legitimate debate from occurring. Shame on you. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
And I guess because you know someone from Canada/Britain/France/Spain/ etc that swears the healthcare is worse then they make it out to be and that the US is where everyone with money goes then it must be true. Let's all just ignore study after study that shows every single first world country has it better than the US. Sure, I'll believe Cuba is hiding the real story. What about the other 30+ countries that have better healthcare at a lower GDP cost? Are they lying too? -Matt On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:47 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry guys, I just have to jump in on the Cuban health care thing. I live in Venezuela and we have LOTS of Cuban doctors. I know some personally. I know Venezuelans who have studied in Cuba. It's nothing like they (the Cuban govt) say it is. The numbers are good because it's a closed totalitarian system where one doesn't dare report what is unpopular. Come on guys, you know enough about Cuba. People are clinging to inner tubes and hunks of wood to get away. When I was in the merchant marine we picked up two boat loads of them. Do you guys remember when Russia was still the USSR and on Radio Moscow they had the farm report segment telling about the great excesses of food produced mean while our merchant marine was busying bringing loads of give-away grain to the USSR. Please don'e buy what their state-run media is saying. Anyone see Fahrenheit 911? Remember when Michael Moore arrived at the neighborhood hospital but then they (and their cameras) were quickly directed to the other hospital? Wonder why? Because the neighborhood one (and the whole healthcare system for the people) would have been a laughing stock. Instead they were directed to the premier 5 star hospital that is probably for party officials and military higher ups. Greg On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Robert West wrote: Actually, the United States ranks number 37 in the world for the best doctors and health care system. Most Americans are under the impression that we are number one in so many things but sadly we are way less than number one in most everything. The best doctors and healthcare system? France and Italy. Cuba actually has a very impressive health system and many countries send their doctors there for training. Again, sad but true. Hiding ones head in the sand and ignoring what goes on outside our borders is what we've been doing. I know it's not competition, per se, but it should at least be used as a measuring tool. I'm not under any delusion that we or myself are best in anything. Keeps me moving. Bob- Is this the Insurance List?This is why politics should be a No-No. It's 99% of the list now. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:48 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance No kidding. No profits no medical advancements. Where do people go when they seek the best doctors and health system in the world? America. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance No, not that simple... On 12/7/09, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Exactly. We are the one and only industrialized country (with whatever industry we might have left) who puts profit in healthcare. As you stated, their goal is to NOT pay and they can and do come up with anything they can find to do that. Profit has no place in healthcare. Single payer is the only thing I see working. As far as increased taxes to pay for it, we already are paying for it and getting zero bang for our buck. As George from the great white north said, healthcare shows up nowhere in his budget. They just pay extra in taxes. Medicare for all. End of the controversy. Simple. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sharples Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance One of the basic probems IMO is that the whole idea of medical insurance, as currentlky implemented, is fundamentally flawed. Consider selling ISP services under the model of broadband insurance. Under that model, your customer would pay you a certain amount per month in case he needs broadband, and you would do your best to find reasons to deny him access. Or how about housing insurance instead of monthly rent. You pay the landlord a certain amount every month in case you need shelter and he oversubscribes a number of his units and hires guards to keep people out on various pretexts. Sound completely ridiculous,
Re: [WISPA] Insurance....
On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I speak Spanish. I know Cubans and I know a lot of people who have been to Cuba. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not refuting all those other countries statistics. I thought you wanted debate of the facts. Or do you just want us to sit at your feet and listen? I do want to debate the facts, but you are responding with anecdotes. This is a standard straw-man used throughout the healthcare debate. I know person X from country Y that says this or had such and such happen to them. Such a statement can be true, but it is meaningless in the context of the debate. Such a situation needs to be statistically significant to matter. All systems have their flaws as no one believes a perfect system exists. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OSPF Calculations
show ip route -Matt On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Does the lack of response mean there is no tool? Is this something WISPS would use if it were available? Scott Reed wrote: Does anyone have a tool you use to help determine OSPF link costs and track what you have set for OSPF costs? What I would really like is something I can enter the link costs for all the paths and then it will show the costs and routes between 2 selected nodes. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.79/2522 - Release Date: 11/23/09 19:45:00 -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
Too many lists just fragment the conversation. Many including myself just don't feel like joining a bunch of lists. Ultimately, if WISPA is trying to move the value of the lists to just members then they should just make the existing list, members only and be done with. -Matt On Sep 12, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: Ah. I never quite remember that: the WISP list is for WISPA members only, while the WISPA list is for any WISP. Definitely clever naming ;-). cough Still, I wish they'd change that since us not-so-clever people would expect the reverse! Anyway, I generally support moving some of this onto internal lists, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to divide things up so finely that we have frequency-labelled lists. Chuck On Sep 12, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: A members-only list, so if people don't mind to keep it going on this list instead of the closed one... Rubens On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Heads up thread - Jack made a new list for 3.650 topics specifically. On 9/12/09, Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com wrote: Tom, 802.16d implementations can and do support diversity antennas on the AUs. I don't know the definitive answer to the rest of the question. But I do know that: (1) Clients in 802.16e can and do support diversity (2) The clients are supposed to be interoperable (3) I know of no clients that support diversity in 802.16d So, speculatively, the point might that 802.16e clients support diversity and interoperate. You pick up at least a few db with client diversity antennas-though not nearly enough to make up for the lower power regime you have to operate in. Chuck On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Patrick, Always great to see your list posts filled with good info. Responses inline... The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high cost and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self- install. Can you clarify? Are you saying D Spec does not support Diversity? Or that most D vendors focusing on price chose not to include implementation of it? Even most Wifi chipsets supports diversity. My understanding was D supported diversity, because the early Pre- Wimax Aperto supported all types of Diversity. Please clarify. I'd like to add... I'd like to see more FIXED products support Diversity at the AP. Trials have shown that Polarity diversity yielded much better results than Spacial diversity for NLOS. BUT, that data does not consider spectrum availabilty and congestion. Many Metro deployments can't afford to waste a polarity, with limited spectrum and lots of noise, and forced to abandon the idea of Polarity diversity. Spacial Diversity at teh AP is an enhancement that can be used without any trade-off other than Colo fees if can't avoid paying colo per antenna. Actually in newer MIMO designs Spacial Diversity on its own showed signficant improvements in range. This could becaome even more important in 3.65 with few channels. Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz doing self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D is better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for public safety video type networks and definitely for voice-centric users. D is better for enterprise, where many users sit behind the CPE. E is better for roaming individual users with modest expectations. I'd agree. And I'd agree D is most appropriate for most WISPs. I think the biggest factor in deciding though isn't technology specs? People want to pick the technology with the longest life span. Many WISPs might prefer D, but are afraid D might be discontinued sooner, since the big dollar might have followed E. Just like is happening right now. I think the number one factor that will lead WISPs to pick D is acknowledgement that Vendors understand and see the long term potential and MArket for D, so we can be confident about our vendors. So far, I think the primary vendors have done a good job showing their supprot for D. The other number 1 barrier to WiMax is price, so once again many have chosen D for price reasons. But that is a fake benefit, because technically there is no reason that E product couldn't be sold just as Cheap if it came down to it. If anything, E has the potential to drop to lower prices, because of economy of scale and diverse use for WiMax chipsets. So what I'm saying is... Wimax E is killing themselves by pricing their products to high. Right now D has the potential to regain its market share because its price advantage. However, one good way for E to protect its market share is to try and influence the
Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
E is only really useful for mobile and mobile is not supportable with the current 3650 rules. -Matt On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.comwrote: I would like to see more vendors support 802.16e at 3.65GHz. Also I would like to see 802.16e at 3.65GHz supported in a netbook and a USB dongle. Does anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz? Tim -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World next week. Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed deployment, but if you nailed me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too many things for too many people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far more useful for fixed deployments. -Matt On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote: The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now is the time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum in a manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it put out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila: The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions for fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two versions of WiMAX address the demand for these different types of access: * 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of the IEEE 802.16 standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in Line of Sight (LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments. * 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels, this version is based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for handoffs and roaming. It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is going to asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week. The fact is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was designed to do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband. This version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile version for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz and 35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric or even higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for networks doing high capacity upstream like video surveillance. For too long, vendors that now only do the mobile standard have been trying to squeeze the round peg of the mobile standard into the square hole of fixed networks. This has been confusing many, and leading some to overpay for their networks. Why pay for millions in RD for features that you can never use, especially in a 3.65 GHz network where mobile can't happen? We have seen consultants spec'ing in E for 3.65 GHz, thinking they will get interoperability and even PC cards for their networks. They also think they can get self-install -- something this community knows is not possible in 3.65 GHz due to the power restrictions placed on indoor modems. Operators and other would-be WiMAX deployers are being hoodwinked. The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high cost and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self- install. Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz doing self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D is better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for public safety video type networks and definitely for voice-centric users. D is better for enterprise, where many users sit behind the CPE. E is better for roaming individual users with modest expectations. We'd like to hear your opinions, and if you like to discuss this with us while at 4G World, please drop me a note. Regards, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
I didn't state E was not supportable. I stated mobile was not supportable because of the current rules, which severally limit the power of mobile devices. Couple that with the poor physics of 3650 and the limited power available at the base stations to compensate; mobile will never work. -Matt On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.comwrote: What part of the 3650 rules make E not supportable? Tim -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? E is only really useful for mobile and mobile is not supportable with the current 3650 rules. -Matt On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.comwrote: I would like to see more vendors support 802.16e at 3.65GHz. Also I would like to see 802.16e at 3.65GHz supported in a netbook and a USB dongle. Does anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz? Tim -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World next week. Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed deployment, but if you nailed me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too many things for too many people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far more useful for fixed deployments. -Matt On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote: The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now is the time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum in a manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it put out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila: The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions for fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two versions of WiMAX address the demand for these different types of access: * 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of the IEEE 802.16 standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in Line of Sight (LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments. * 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels, this version is based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for handoffs and roaming. It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is going to asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week. The fact is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was designed to do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband. This version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile version for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz and 35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric or even higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for networks doing high capacity upstream like video surveillance. For too long, vendors that now only do the mobile standard have been trying to squeeze the round peg of the mobile standard into the square hole of fixed networks. This has been confusing many, and leading some to overpay for their networks. Why pay for millions in RD for features that you can never use, especially in a 3.65 GHz network where mobile can't happen? We have seen consultants spec'ing in E for 3.65 GHz, thinking they will get interoperability and even PC cards for their networks. They also think they can get self-install -- something this community knows is not possible in 3.65 GHz due to the power restrictions placed on indoor modems. Operators and other would- be WiMAX deployers are being hoodwinked. The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high cost and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self- install. Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz doing self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D is better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for public safety video type
Re: [WISPA] Grant
My two cents is that BIP/BTOP is going to be great for vendors and terrible for WISPs. The vendors don't care who gets awarded the money as long as they sell gear. -Matt On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: Just an observation. Lots of companies are asking for letters of support from public safety agencies. As Chief of my Fire Department, I have gotten a number of requests in the past week. The really interesting ones are the ones that A. Show no benefit to public safety other than they say broadband will be more available and cheaper. b. Come from companies that are my normal vendors in my business, that are branching out. Now, instead of selling me product so I can make money, they are going to put up their own, so they can compete with me in the leasing world, while they also provide broadband. Hmmm Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant Fromthe California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)
On Jul 17, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Clearly a victory that some government bodies are recognizing WISP provers. (Even if they are a publically traded company :-) Just to clarify... We partnered with a local operator named Mother Lode Internet. The local operator will focus on last mile, while we focus on backhaul and backend operations. Since we are already a regulated telecommunications provider in all 48 states, use GAAP, and have regular audits, we are well positioned to work with the government. advanced broadband services to five counties in Northern California Do you mind sharing what 5 counties RapidLink will be serving? Alpine, Calaveras, Amador, Mariposa, Tuolumne -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Question re: WISP for sale
Revenue matters a lot less now. Earnings-based deals are what are being done now. Of course, many WISPs are spending all of their earnings on CAPEX. This is where capitalized leases play such a critical role. -Matt On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: 3x gross annual was a very nice number... but not realistic any longer. 1.5x is the last number I heard for an actual sale that went through. Travis Josh Luthman wrote: One way I have heard it done: Take the annual gross revenue, times it by 3 (three years gross revenue) and that's the buy out cost starting point. Seen this more so with telecom (voice) then data services, but it's a place to start. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr pni...@cnetworksolutions.com wrote: I apologize as I know this has been discussed on the list before. We are entertaining the idea of selling out of our respectable size wireless ISP business in eastern Oklahoma. We have about 500 (growing daily) subscribers. Anyway, we are working on determining the net worth of the business. Any thoughts or formulas for determining this? Patrick Nix, Jr., Computer Network Solutions CSWEB.NET Internet Services IT Manager http://www.cnetworksolutions.com http://www.csweb.net (918) 235-0414 Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Question re: WISP for sale
So it would seem, but that is not the case. There are plenty of companies looking to acquire operators right now that are EBITDA positive. Unfortunately, too many operators that would normally be interested in a deal are hoping for a windfall thanks to ARRA. This means that the supply of available companies is low. I think I am going to be stuck buying companies not interested in ARRA. -Matt On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: I'd point out that the best time to get a high valuation in a rural area is not likely going to be at the launch of a $7billion dollar grant program. Why buy other's outdated equipment when you can get the brand new state of the art for FREE? You are probably going to have to rely more on cash flow related methods of valuation. Instead, you might want to look at your finances, and see if your network could be leveraged to be combined with another's RUS loan/grant. For example, if the assets could be leveraged to make expanding from it more cost effective. Because then your value might be higher based on the additional grants that are enabled because your infrastructure helps qualify it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr pni...@cnetworksolutions.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: [WISPA] Question re: WISP for sale I apologize as I know this has been discussed on the list before. We are entertaining the idea of selling out of our respectable size wireless ISP business in eastern Oklahoma. We have about 500 (growing daily) subscribers. Anyway, we are working on determining the net worth of the business. Any thoughts or formulas for determining this? Patrick Nix, Jr., Computer Network Solutions CSWEB.NET Internet Services IT Manager http://www.cnetworksolutions.com http://www.csweb.net (918) 235-0414 Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant Fromthe California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: Isn't Ben a WISPA member? I thought he'd told me two ISPCons ago he was going to join... Not that I am aware. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant From the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)
CASF Funding to Accelerate Broadband Services Delivery to Five Counties Company to Seek Additional Funding Through ARRA Broadband Stimulus Programs http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rapid-Link-Awarded-iw-2628732805.html?x=0.v=1 -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ntop
Just to follow up, IP SLA via SNMP gets me most of the way there. For Netflow I am having to write a Java daemon, but I am having some initial success. Looks like a couple more days of programming and I will be there. I did find that not every Cisco supports IP SLA. Luckily, every voice customer of ours has a Cisco that does. -Matt On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Matt Liotta wrote: Good call... I forgot all about IP SLA. We can easily query that via SNMP. -Matt On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Rutis, Cameron wrote: I haven't worked with it yet but cisco's IP SLA feature can generate a MOS score http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/tk920/technologies_white_paper0900aecd801752ec.html -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ntop On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Matt, Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter? I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more ideal. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ntop
Good call... I forgot all about IP SLA. We can easily query that via SNMP. -Matt On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Rutis, Cameron wrote: I haven't worked with it yet but cisco's IP SLA feature can generate a MOS score http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/tk920/technologies_white_paper0900aecd801752ec.html -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ntop On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Matt, Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter? I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more ideal. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ntop
On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Matt, Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter? I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more ideal. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] ntop
Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of netflow and voip. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ntop
I am looking for something more historical and high level. -Matt On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: I prefer analyzing with Wireshark, as it is much easier and has a lot of tools. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com wrote: Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of netflow and voip. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ntop
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Parr wrote: Do you have any specific questions? Yes, it can identify most VoIP traffic, and yes, it can take a netflow feed. I am looking for a few things. One is to be able to track utilization on a per AS basis both in realtime and over time. We have an appliance that can do this now, but I am not overly happy with the information I can get out of it. Regarding VoIP, I'd like to capture quality metrics in realtime and over time. Further, if ntop can perform these tasks -- which I understand it can-- then I am looking for feedback on how well it does in this regard. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz Exclusion Zone
150km radius -Matt On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote: Okay I'm banging my head against the wall a bit this morning J Subpart Z of the FCC Part 90 Rules - Wireless Broadband Serices in the 3650-3700 MHz Band - Section 90.1331 states: (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, base and fixed stations may not be located within 150 km of any grandfathered satellite earth station operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The coordinates of these stations are available at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sd/3650; My interpretation of that rule would mean that you need to draw a circle of a radius of 150Km from each station, and this is your exclusion zone. Yet many maps on the web show this 150Km requirement as diameter. not as a radius. Our office would be outside of the exclusion zone if it is a diameter requirement, yet inside the exclusion zone if it is a radius requirement. Can anyone point me to something from the FCC that specifies what the requirement is? Thank you, Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz Exclusion Zone
The appendix calculations are only an example. Earth stations are not required to follow them for determining interference. IMHO, keyhole calculations coupled with standard interference calculations a la part 101 PCN is a superior methodology. -Matt On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Charles Wyble wrote: BTW the calculations in the RO appendix have errors. I have a corrected version provided to me by the FCC OET. If there is interest I can post it online and send the link. Matt Liotta wrote: 150km radius -Matt On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote: Okay I'm banging my head against the wall a bit this morning J Subpart Z of the FCC Part 90 Rules - Wireless Broadband Serices in the 3650-3700 MHz Band - Section 90.1331 states: (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, base and fixed stations may not be located within 150 km of any grandfathered satellite earth station operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The coordinates of these stations are available at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sd/3650; My interpretation of that rule would mean that you need to draw a circle of a radius of 150Km from each station, and this is your exclusion zone. Yet many maps on the web show this 150Km requirement as diameter. not as a radius. Our office would be outside of the exclusion zone if it is a diameter requirement, yet inside the exclusion zone if it is a radius requirement. Can anyone point me to something from the FCC that specifies what the requirement is? Thank you, Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network
More importantly OSPF or most IGPs for that matter can only get so large before their performance becomes an issue. BGP doesn't have these scalability issues. Therefore, large networks run OSPF or ISIS for select parts of their network and then aggregate the parts behind BGP. -Matt On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Charles Wu wrote: Dynamic route redistribution if your network is sufficiently complex and you have customers that you are servicing bgp to that you want to protect from intra-network failure -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal network? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David wrote: You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the longer a route will look. Assuming your upstream didn't increase your local preference, which is normally the case these days. AS prepending is no longer the ideal methodology for traffic engineering. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
If you provide the prefixes in question it would be easier. You may want to have your customer check with their other upstreams to see what communities they support. BGP communities that adjust local preference are preferred over prepending. See http://www.onesc.net/communities/ for a listing for a number of providers. -Matt On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: Exactly, The problem is not for own ip space, its for a downstream customer ips space, they have several providers and want to favor our link for some ip ranges. They are prepending such ranges to the other providers to favor our link. Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:02 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the longer a route will look. David -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:57 PM To: WISPA General List; can...@believewireless.net Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Should I not prepend to favor our link? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:52 PM To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP You mean prepending AS numbers, not routes. Prepending will also lengthen the the calculation, so if they are prepending to you, this would the route through your link less favorable to the outside world. Are you seeing the prepend coming from their routers? On a cisco it would be show ip neighbor ipaddress received-routes, if you are seeing the prepend from them, check and see if you are forwarding them on to your upstream show ip neighbor ipaddress of upstream interface advertised-routes. If you see these in both places, it's most likely your upstream not allowing the prepend. Regards Michael Baird Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers routes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwickjeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work. t...@mattke.net Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Anyone available for some BGP support? Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 --- - - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- - - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - - --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - - -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ - - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- - - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- - - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- - - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
There is only one PA that can support GigE, which is the PA-GE. Unfortunately, the slot can't support the full capacity of the interface. Depending on what engine you have you will not likely exceed 200Mbps with that interface. The only way to really handle GigE with a 7200 is to get at least an NPE-G1, which has GigE interfaces on board. The NPE-G2 also has GigE interfaces on board. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote: I have a 7204VXR router as my core. I am looking at upgrading from a 100mb ethernet to a gigE. I am having a really hard time find out how I can add gigabit ethernet (via RJ-45 connectors) to this router. I have two spare slots of expansion cards but I cannot find a card that does gig. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, - Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
A lot less than you would think. We run Cisco for our entire network. Costs have come way down on new equipment and there is a ton of used equipment for pennies on dollar. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Kevin Neal wrote: I've found Cisco ports are more expensive than a Mikrotik distribution router. We currently have a Cisco handling BGP and upstream connections, then we distribute it using a switch to multiple Mikrotik boxes that distribute and route(OSPF) to our various backhauls. I'd cringe to think what it would cost for us to run all of our radios at our NOC into a cisco. -Kevin On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote: Even if I go to a NPE-G1 or G2 I still need a total of 5 ports. 1 for inbound connection. 2 for outbound to radios that serve different towers 1 for local network of servers etc. 1 for colo customer. How do I add those other two ports? Randy Cosby wrote: Which NPE are you using? Randy Matt Jenkins wrote: I have a 7204VXR router as my core. I am looking at upgrading from a 100mb ethernet to a gigE. I am having a really hard time find out how I can add gigabit ethernet (via RJ-45 connectors) to this router. I have two spare slots of expansion cards but I cannot find a card that does gig. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, - Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
That was worthless... don't take your word, take some some blogger's word. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: It's not FUD Matt. It's real. I have a pricelist from them with the fees required to relicense gear...might as well buy the new ones. Don't take my word: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/14756 Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards? On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, David E. Smith wrote: Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? Used to be, the software on a Cisco router was licensed to an entity separate from the purchase of the hardware. Thus, if you bought a router used, its (already-installed) copy of IOS was unlicensed and you'd have to buy a new software license to use the router. That is FUD from competing vendors. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
From your own article reference... Legal experts have varied opinions on the enforceability of some transfer restrictions, but they agree on one point: If anyone is to be found guilty of violating the software license, it would be the original purchaser who resold the equipment. The first buyer, after all, is the one who had a chance to see the license agreement and know about the software transfer restriction. Think about it... if the FUD was correct then leasing Cisco hardware would not work. This is because title to the hardware is in the hands of the leaser and is generally transfered at the end with a buy out. The amount of leased Cisco hardware is astounding. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:09 PM, David E. Smith wrote: Matt Liotta wrote: Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? That is FUD from competing vendors. http://www.infoworld.com/t/hardware/hidden-cost-hardware-729 This is six years old - but that's kinda my point. At least in the past, Cisco was insistent on relicensing IOS fees, which were sold separately from SmartNet support contracts. Cisco itself still seems to think this is the case: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/iosswrel/prod_gen_ios_licensing.html Do not transfer Cisco IOS software licenses from one company to another except in special circumstances, such as company mergers. And the license itself: http://www.cisco.com/public/sw-license-agreement.html uses the word nontransferable in a couple places, though that could be boilerplate. I'd love to be wrong on this, so if you've got documentation supporting your assertion that IOS licenses are attached to hardware (and thus can be transferred with the hardware itself), please post it. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Matt, That was just the first article I found. There are plenty of others. When this first came out, I was on the ISP-Equipment List and it was a huge subject of conversation. Many of the resellers of used Cisco gear put a note on their front web pages that software relicensing is the responsibility of the buyer. Cisco was clearly trying to get rid of the used market at that time. I have a Cisco pricelist with the relicense fees. I am sure you do. The question is who is subject to them and in what case do they apply. I doubt you will provide answers. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
That is a policy statement. It is not legal fact. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: From Cisco's own website: Policy: Cisco's current policy is that Software is not transferable without Cisco's prior written consent and payment of any license fee (License Fee) unless one of the exceptions below in the Exceptions section applies. Regardless of whether a License Fee is payable under this Policy, the transferee may be required to pay Service inspection or reinstatement fees in accordance with Cisco policies located here. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/cisco_software_transfer_relicensing_policy.h tml Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards? That was worthless... don't take your word, take some some blogger's word. -Matt On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: It's not FUD Matt. It's real. I have a pricelist from them with the fees required to relicense gear...might as well buy the new ones. Don't take my word: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/14756 Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards? On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, David E. Smith wrote: Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? Used to be, the software on a Cisco router was licensed to an entity separate from the purchase of the hardware. Thus, if you bought a router used, its (already-installed) copy of IOS was unlicensed and you'd have to buy a new software license to use the router. That is FUD from competing vendors. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Also, your opinion on this subject seems to have changed. This is from your post on 3-18-2008. The first part is David Smith's question to you: How so? The IOS software issue continues to be complicated, which was my original point. Meanwhile, competing vendors like yourself continue to spread FUD. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco IOS licensing policies (was: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet cards)
On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:26 PM, David E. Smith wrote: So you actually don't have any documentation that resale of Cisco gear transfer the IOS license, thus making the gear usable (in Cisco's eyes) to the second-hand buyer. Gotcha. Do you have any actual documentation where Cisco successfully sued the parties involved in a resale? Gotcha While I believe they'd be in the legal right to start shutting down eBay auctions and resale businesses, they know it'd be a PR nightmare. What gives you that belief? What legal concept would allow for such a thing? Cisco likely turns a blind eye to this sort of thing for the same reason many software companies are somewhat ambivalent about the rampant piracy of their software. They don't lose that much in real sales (John Q. Highschooler wasn't about to spend $1000 on Photoshop anyway), and if he has a talent for art and gets a Real Job, it's very likely his employer will insist on using properly-licensed software instead of that pirated copy that came with a keygen and a bonus Trojan. Cisco doesn't turn a blind eye at all. They don't want a grey market for their gear. They have written a license, created a policy, and have put forth various efforts to convince people against the resell of their product. The fact that millions of dollars worth of Cisco resale goes on tells how ineffective these techniques are. Of course, the best part is that their policy's biggest advocates are their competitors. Too often these competitors find their new products priced similar to used Cisco products. And the used Cisco product still wins! Not on merit or anything, but Cisco owns the majority of the market and they control the majority of the labor pool who makes product decisions. Anyway... I don't stand to benefit by scaring people away from Cisco. I am also not stuck using non-Cisco gear in my network where I feel some need to attack Cisco. Cisco gear may not be the best on the market in a very category, but it is hard to argue the gear isn't good and effective. It is also hard to reconcile the fact that there is a huge labor pool of Cisco trained and experienced professionals. Any successful business knows that people are the hardest part when one tries to scale a business. Picking Cisco makes that easier. Now on to the actual argument. Can Cisco sell a piece of hardware with included software required to run it, force the owner of the hardware to accept a license in order to use it and subsequently tie a future owner of the hardware that acquires it from the original owner to the terms of the license? No. The license is simply unenforceable. There is a ton of case law to support this and Cisco knows it. Further, their suggestion that they have these rights, but thus far have failed to enforce them only furthers their inability to enforce the license terms. Does that mean you can move software images from device to device without a license? No. Does that mean you can buy some router and install any software you want on it without a license? No. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Stimulus Allocations?
At the end of the day, the agencies giving out the money have to give out a lot of money in a very short period of time. To achieve this they plan on dividing up the allocations across a variety of other entities for help as well as allocating large sums to individual companies. This means applications for small amounts of money just aren't going to be considered. Of course the flip side is that organizations submitting applications for larger amounts than they can actual handle are going to be denied as well. In other words, this whole process is self-selecting for large companies with resources. Now then... what do you need to be able to show to have any chance? Your application needs to be for a large amount of money say at least $25MM. Your company needs to have previously been awarded a grant for a broadband project. You need to have matching funds lined up ahead of time that cover not only the requirements of the grant, but also your overhead costs associated with ramping up to do the project. This is because you need to hire people to implement the project or it won't be shovel ready. Once you have the above then you will be just another application worthy of consideration. If you want to get to the top of the pile then you are going to need recommendations from your PUC/PSC, and/or congressman, and/or governor. Also, should you be submitting applications to RUS that plan on utilizing 3650, remember that Adelstein was a major proponent of 3650's hybrid licensing model. Do you have a large 3650 deployment? Is it compliant with the rules? -Matt On May 25, 2009, at 9:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote: Charles is right 100%, and he is being as proactive as any VAR (including DR and ourselves... Charles did a WiNOG on this not to long ago) trying to figure the mess out so you can get the money (hopefully you'll spend it with us right!). Here is what I know (and I've done more research and had more conversations than I think I cared to): - No one knows where the money is going to go or who is going to get it. Some people think the States are going to get all the money, others that Fiber will get all of the money, Telco's will get it, only people that have received RUS funding in the past will get it, etc. No one has a clear idea of where the money is going, so it's hard to say what anyone can do to help you get the money except give you an idea of what the RUS process is like. - Realistically, the only (and best) thing WISPA can do is provide a forum for people to discuss what they are doing to get the money, and WISPA can help lobby the government to get the money into our hands. I wouldn't expect WISPA to provide a grant in a box widget :-) - Many people are arguing already that if you haven't already filed paperwork, you're not going to get any money. It's amazing how many people have already put in RUS applications to get this money, before the rules on who is going to get it has been defined! - There are a 1,000 people now that think they are going to get a million dollars from the Government to start a WISP... I'm afraid they are going to crash and burn Metricom style. So while an incumbent might be the better choice to get the money, the packages newcomers are putting together are pretty impressive. But I digress... because... - Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the WISP industry gets even 10% of the money... the sad thing being we can do much more with it than the people that probably will get it. Anyways, I wouldn't expect any reseller/distributor/trade organization to give you the secret sauce on how to get that money. Sure we are all doing research to try to help people get money, but it doesn't mean they will be right (I've seen some pretty interesting ideas on who/how people are going to get money... some that I've wanted to laugh at). So I would start looking at filling out some of the RUS paperwork, and gathering as much information as you can. In the long run, if you want the money, YOUR going to have to go get it... everyone else can help though :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:46 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Stimulus Allocations? Hi Scott, What has WISPA came up with to help WISP's get in on the broadband stimulus package? Throw me some bait? As I promised before, my membership fees(after tax season) are sitting here... give me something to bite. Not being an A**, but I belonged to one place(not WISPA), but didn't get much out of it. I did receive an invitation from Double Radius to help me get in on this. Just wanting to know if WISPA got anything going on,
Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
: [WISPA] Service Limits Care to explain how that is illegal? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented this very thing. They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3, or Joe's Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into their suite. They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but they must allow their installation. The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's Telecom, which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are brothers. That is illegal. Same situation as we're talking about here. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits Hello Mike, Have to step in here and disagree. Private property. If they don't want you they can keep you out one way or another. This may not sit well with some, but it is the proper thing to do. The market will always sort these type of issues out themselves without third party or government intervention. This is no different than comparing any property amenity. Property A has XYZ vs. Property B doesn't. Some will find the XYZ amenity important and opt for Property A over B. If enough people do then you can bet Property B will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't happened here. We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not allowed in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been able to get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized personnel the other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service Providers T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a map, showing fiber at the sidewalk, less than 100 feet away, and they claimed that Bishop Ranch wouldn't lt them in the MPOE, so they couldn't deliver. Maybe someone has bogus information? John Mike Hammett wrote: If you want their service, they can't restrict you, AFAIK. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:57 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test tomeplease... As they say, your mileage may vary We have a 2xT1 that we pay $560 per month for, and the routing/peering at TW Telecom is good, but then again, we are in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the building owners would have let TW Telecom into this buildings MPOE's we would have a 10 meg fiber circuit and be paying about $700 for it. The fiber is at the curb, but Bishop Ranch won't let TW Telecom in John Matt Liotta wrote: Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW Telecom, they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest major peering point to you. This causes most of your US based traffic to flow through Ashburn or Dallas. -Matt On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Just download a file via http from our web server at http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip and then http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to just one of the servers please (they take same route). If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then the data is not too useful for me... Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
On May 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Brad Belton wrote: Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a tenant other than the property in question. No it doesn't make that assumption. Tenants make long term decisions related to property leases. In many cases, the tenant makes assumptions and expectations about their use of the property without getting those assumptions and expectations in a lease document. Further, the property owner does a similar thing and as such has certain liabilities that aren't protected in their leases. All of this is because generally the people negotiating the leases aren't savvy with technology. A perfect case in point is Wi-Fi. I know of no major REITs that have clauses in their leases regarding Wi-Fi or indeed inference issues. Yet, every company I know plans to have a Wi-Fi network deployed in their leased space. Now if you assume that an MTU is going to have multiple tenants that all are going to deploy Wi-Fi in close proximity you have a natural interference issue. In fact, with today's 802.11N you now have less overlapping channels then you did before. Couple this with many enterprise Wi-Fi vendors including rogue AP detection and mitigation features that attempt to disable Wi-Fi APs over the air. Clearly a war is brewing between tenants' Wi-Fi networks that can only result in multiple tenants becoming unhappy with the interference. It will fall to the property owner to resolve the issue. Yet the property owner doesn't have any legal standing to force tenants to deploy their Wi-Fi networks in any particular way. This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs. restaurants that don't allow smoking. If you want to smoke you will dine at restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking won't get your business. This works for the non-smokers too. Personally I'm a non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants, but we all know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue. It is quite different actually. Again, telecom issues are almost never dealt with until after the lease has been signed. I can't tell you how many deals we get because tenants signed a lease and need telecom services delivered, but their preferred vendor is unable to deliver in time or in budget due to construction issues. Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property owner will make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not to renew a tenant's lease. Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease? Eviction, sure, but not for renewals. Have you ever read a lease agreement closely? They are always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they should be. Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they can always lease elsewhere. I shutter to think about the shear number of lease agreements I have signed, so I have a pretty good idea about the process and standard terms. You argue the tenant will never know. Yet, my experience is that landlords are all to eager to tell a tenant why. There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers in one property. Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other limitations. Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the new provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent. Insurance requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements. The property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to enter the property if they choose to do so. Maybe; I have never seen it with any large REIT. Little property owners often try and fail. Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should. It is after all their property and they should have final say what happens to their property. If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner will see the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the property. Depending on what you mean by prevail. I have had my share of property owners win the battle and lose the war so to speak. The market always works these issues out themselves. No it doesn't. Again, see the Sherman Act for generic anti-trust issues and the 1996 Telecom Act for specific competitive issues relating to our industry. In both cases, the government was forced to act because the market couldn't work it out for themselves. If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then all of this is a moot point. The problem is today (due to our current government nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider. Savvy property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't see as a benefit. If that was only the case. There may be
Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please...
[~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip --07:49:09-- http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip = `dummy.zip' Connecting to 208.65.55.55:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip] 100% [= = ] 63,375,843 4.08M/sETA 00:00 07:49:21 (5.14 MB/s) - `dummy.zip' saved [63375843/63375843] [~]# wget http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip --07:49:33-- http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip = `dummy.zip.1' Connecting to 64.128.251.33:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip] 100% [= = ] 63,375,843 2.42M/sETA 00:00 07:49:58 (2.41 MB/s) - `dummy.zip.1' saved [63375843/63375843] [~]# traceroute 64.128.251.33 traceroute to 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 66.187.180.9 (66.187.180.9) 0.379 ms 0.342 ms 0.224 ms 2 ge3-43.ar1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.65) 0.500 ms 0.481 ms 0.359 ms 3 ae0.cr1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.129) 0.293 ms 0.281 ms 0.221 ms 4 xe-0-1-0.cr2.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.106) 13.458 ms 16.902 ms 13.460 ms 5 eqix.asbn.twtelecom.net (206.223.115.36) 14.210 ms 14.403 ms 14.194 ms 6 66.192.243.164 (66.192.243.164) 24.834 ms 24.774 ms 24.831 ms 7 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33) 26.691 ms 26.759 ms 26.943 ms On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Just download a file via http from our web server at http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip and then http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to just one of the servers please (they take same route). If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then the data is not too useful for me... Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please...
Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW Telecom, they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest major peering point to you. This causes most of your US based traffic to flow through Ashburn or Dallas. -Matt On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Just download a file via http from our web server at http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip and then http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to just one of the servers please (they take same route). If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then the data is not too useful for me... Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please... - OFFLIST
Since you replied onlist... Yes, nLayer is in our mix, but they only get about 10% of our transit traffic. It helps being peered to 100s of ASNs. ;) -Matt On May 15, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Charles Wu wrote: You're using Nlayer these days? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:53 AM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please... [~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip --07:49:09-- http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip = `dummy.zip' Connecting to 208.65.55.55:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip] 100% [= = ] 63,375,843 4.08M/sETA 00:00 07:49:21 (5.14 MB/s) - `dummy.zip' saved [63375843/63375843] [~]# wget http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip --07:49:33-- http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip = `dummy.zip.1' Connecting to 64.128.251.33:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip] 100% [= = ] 63,375,843 2.42M/sETA 00:00 07:49:58 (2.41 MB/s) - `dummy.zip.1' saved [63375843/63375843] [~]# traceroute 64.128.251.33 traceroute to 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 66.187.180.9 (66.187.180.9) 0.379 ms 0.342 ms 0.224 ms 2 ge3-43.ar1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.65) 0.500 ms 0.481 ms 0.359 ms 3 ae0.cr1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.129) 0.293 ms 0.281 ms 0.221 ms 4 xe-0-1-0.cr2.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.106) 13.458 ms 16.902 ms 13.460 ms 5 eqix.asbn.twtelecom.net (206.223.115.36) 14.210 ms 14.403 ms 14.194 ms 6 66.192.243.164 (66.192.243.164) 24.834 ms 24.774 ms 24.831 ms 7 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33) 26.691 ms 26.759 ms 26.943 ms On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Just download a file via http from our web server at http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip and then http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to just one of the servers please (they take same route). If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then the data is not too useful for me... Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik FCC
On May 12, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Eje Gustafsson says this is not the case or elsewhen I buy a minipci wireless card for my laptop it would be illegal... This has been discussed at length. No matter how many times someone makes the laptop argument it doesn't change the fact that the FCC disagrees with that argument. Now someone could pay an attorney to argue with the FCC and get them to clarify the situation. Until that time the system certification requirement stands. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik FCC
On May 12, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: I've been told personally by an FCC testing lab that I can take a XR5 which has been tested with say a 23db panel antenna (with FCC) and use the same gain antenna or less for myself and would not have to have it certified again... They told me not to get it tested because I didn't need to because Ubiquity already part certified it on that type antenna. You are mixing issues. The ability to change antennas is different than system certification. If you had a system that was certified with one antenna you could change the antenna to something of similar type with the same or less gain without an issue. But, the system itself must certified. If this is an argument we will never resolve I can live with that, but I am fairly sure with the resources on this list we can come to a final conclusion based on facts and I think we should. This list is filled with resources that will tell you what you don't want to hear and another group that will tell you want you do want to hear. None of that matters. What you need to do is assume the worst case or get your specific case approved by the FCC. In other words, what you want will not work and you cannot do it until the FCC gives you written approval. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik FCC
On May 12, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Ok... so back to original dilemma... I take a XR5, the precise antenna they certified with this radio card, a RB411 and hook it all up and use it myself within FCC RF guidelines. Criminal or law abiding citizen... Neither, but you would be in violation of the FCC regulations and be subject to civil penalties. Think about this like tax law. Imagine someone makes a great case about how you can avoid taxes legally by doing a certain thing. You may believe the person and the person's reasons may seem perfectly logical. However, would it be smart to follow them? Probably not without signoff from a CPA and/or tax attorney. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections bandwidth=2x why?
I could download the file in 16 seconds from Atlanta. Never saw it get past 48Mbps. Did notice it was routing through Ashburn, which is less than ideal if you are Florida. -Matt On May 11, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Yes lots of them, from different internet connections as well. Focusing on customers from BHN connecting to our TW Telecom fiber circuit. Have not been able to do enough testing outside our network though to be certain. That leads me to a request... can anyone who reads this that has decent amount of bandwidth (20mb available) download this file and tell me your provider and how fast the transfer was so long as its not being limited on your side. I should have approx 80MB free bandwidth for this transfer when you run it... http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip This will help me out a bit... thanks. Email me off list if you want with the results... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 1:53 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections bandwidth=2x why? Have you tried with a different PC? On 5/11/09, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Any TCP traffic multiple apps same results Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x102 On May 11, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net wrote: We ran into something like that when a customer was using his laptop to generate traffic on a frac DS3 circuit. The issue was primarily due to how his application was trying to generate traffic. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - Linktechs Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:41 AM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections bandwidth=2x why? Speed limit per connection? Or per IP? * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Scott Carullo wrote: On our main upstream connection 100mb fiber a speedtest to BHN yeilds about 7MB max when 15 is there... Open two connections tcp and now the transfer rate doubles (from same server to same client). What would cause this? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 --- --- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
You are not going to get the answers you are seeking. Worse still anyone who tries to give you those answers is either uninformed or lying. As I stated several posts ago, you need to have a thorough understanding of the equipment, have conducting extensive field trials, and produced a business plan specifically for the equipment you selected. You CANNOT get these answers from a mailing list or from datasheets and technical specifications. There are too many tradeoffs that are not altogether clear until have a specific set of equipment, geography, and experience. For example, just consider the variables involved in determining effective throughput for a subscriber. Your SNR determines what modulation you can run. However, your SNR is affected by your channel width, use of uplink subchannelization, and/or diversity. Of course, lowering the channel width and using uplink subchannelization lowers the theoretical throughput, while raising the SNR. Then there is your framerate and which service flow polling priority you have assigned it, which determines the latency for the flow. Latency has a huge impact on theoretical throughput. Strangely because of the TDD nature of WiMAX radios higher latency enables greater throughput up and until it lowers the theoretical maximum throughput of the flow. The above doesn't even consider the differences between 802.16d and 802.16e. Nor does it consider the impact of multiple subscribers and/ or multiple services flows per subscriber. So what is the right answer to whether to use WiMAX or even which WiMAX flavor or vendor? It depends. -Matt On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Michael Baird wrote: Do you have any coverage plots? When I started the other thread, I was really looking for the technical merit's, more then the cost benefits or political arguments. I'm interested 802.16d vs 802.16e, some say 16e is the greatest, some say 16d is the best, what are the technical reasons behind which is which. My task at hand is to write up a comparison for the benefit of my boss, so that we can make an informed decision on which technology to choose. I've read the specs, but I was hoping to get beyond that, and be able to include issues with real world deployments, pros/cons of either tech. We don't want to make the investments (we will run fiber to each tower) and replace our existing deployments with it. We do want to do voice as well (we have a switch and are a CLEC). Regards Michael Baird John, My boss has field tested Aperto's gear to 15miles at full modulation... so a 30km cell radius (18 miles) is possible. But the thing is that wouldn't be the average deployment... and with Cyclone gear you could push the system out that far too (because its going to be line of sight, and the cell is going to be on a mountain top probably) If the only thing you know about deploying gear is trees like the east coast... that expectation isn't going to work for you. If you live in the west where you have towers on mountaintops that can be seen from 70 miles away... its okay. My biggest problem with Jeff's analysis is how many customers signed up in a year... I don't think any WISP will grow 500 customers in 5 months. Or even 150 customers in 5 months (well I've setup a tower before and signed up that many customers to one... but that is the exception rather than the norm). The other catch would be... none of this math makes sense in a rip and replace... so unless your new... you have to rip an old system out to get WiMAX. I also have a slight issue with the assertion that Canopy does not do VoIP... it does it just fine and many Canopy WISP's also sell VoIP services (prime example... Skybeam/JAB). There also is never a 100% take rate on it (probably more like 50% tops) so that has to be factored in. With that said... besides the ugly CPE... we have chosen Aperto as our vendor of choice in the 3.65GHz band. I like it, and I think if you do field trials with it, it will win out over many of the other systems. Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:13 AM To: jefftho...@fastmail.fm; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors Cell radius= 30km The point is for a TCO, that's one tower site to cover a 20km radius, meaning less leases per month of 1k or more, so isntead of 4 tower sites to cover this area ( and pay 4k per month ) So...how are you breaking the laws of physics with this system? Unless you are serving the middle of the dessert then you probably need to back your cell radius down to say 3km. I see above you use 2 different cell radius figures. Is it possible you are overstating expectations in a
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, you said you needed to provide a reason why you did not suggest Aperto. Would it not be preferrable to provide a real reason, not something that is based on a weak deduction, e.g. Aperto issues few PRs so they must not do any business? I don't believe that is an accurate summarization. You can attack the messenger if you want, but that doesn't change the public information that exists. You may not like the conclusions I reached from anecdotal public evidence, but don't get mad at me; direct your anger to your marketing department. Of course, you could also point all of us to real 3650 Aperto deployments actively serving customers. Jeff said he had a list, but I haven't seen it, which means I can only use the public information available from Aperto PR and ULS. We are not nearly so large as my friends at Alvarion to be sure (who uses PRs sparringly, in a manner I support and respect). But we are also far different then the three small publicly-held companies under very severe financial survival diress (as in they have publicly announced they are searching for options in order to survive) who need to issue customer PRs. That is a double-edged sword you are wielding. You and Jeff are making financials of WiMAX vendors an issue. Public companies have audited financials we can all examine. Where is Aperto's financials for us to review? I'd also argue that we are right-sized for the 3650 space -- big enough to have some of the best scientific minds in WiMAX (look at our patents and role in creating the 802.16 standard), yet small enough to actually REALLY care about the business of North American WISPs, not just carriers. Again, maybe you need to talk to the marking department because your own website states, Aperto Networks is the technology leader in the most challenging segment of the WiMAX equipment market: carrier-class infrastructure. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: That was a PR from June 2008 Matt, when few vendors even had certified product in the market for more than a month or two. Further, Manish is not even here any longer. I joined, first as a full time consultant, in October 22, 2008. Check out PRs since September when the new CEO, Brian, joined. Check them out for what? The Zing PR I mentioned before was Nov 4, 2008. There is plenty to debate here without grinding axes and manufacturing faux criticism. Bring on the real debate then. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How does a WISP respond to this situation?
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Lists wrote: Am I owed the balance of the contract? Am I owed the cost of my equipment? Yes and yes assuming there is no provision in the contract why that would not be the case. Since the customer owes you for the service and the equipment if they destroy it then you need to seek payment from the customer. Most likely they will need to ask their insurance to cover it. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with the gear tend to avoid posting to threads about WiMAX because the threads quickly devolve. I suggest you read the archives of this mailing list. To summarize though; operators who use WiMAX like it and think the technology is actually different and better than what else is out there. The people who don't use WiMAX think it is overpriced and not particularly interesting. -Matt On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Charles Wyble wrote: I'm looking for more operational experience and end user experience. Certainly good technology contributes to that, but that isn't my primary goal. Michael Baird wrote: It was interesting, but I was hoping for some more first hand experience reporting. Essentially the only explanation for improved range was a lower noise floor, which isn't a wimax thing, but a 3.65 thing. I think a lot of the 802.16d/e talk is market speak, I'm trying to get through that and establish technical reasons why one or the other is superior. Regards Michael Baird So the recent thread on Wimax was quite interesting. I need to read up on the different technologies involved. I believe that a fixed deployment is sufficient for many many many needs and markets (wireless local loop if you will). If people want mobility/end user wireless they can hang an 802.11 AP off the ethernet port of whatever CPE. Wimax directly to the end device doesn't make much sense to me, in most markets and use cases. Obviously if you are supporting a highly mobile workforce (say public sector type stuff) then it makes a lot more sense. It got me thinking... if one was a new WISP entering an un(der)served market, it seems that it would not make sense to deploy standard 802.11 gear, but rather Wimax gear in 3650Mhz. Is this an accurate assessment? One particular area that I'm targeting, doesn't have any broadband available (other then 3g from Verzion). So they would need to purchase CPE anyway, and it wouldn't be anything they could get from Best Buy (DSL or Cable modem). I'm in the process of negotiating access to the excluded areas (in Southern California), but it's been slow going. Once I gain access it will open up many areas to some sorely needed competition. So who are the vendors in this space worth considering? What are peoples experiences with the sales process (both pre and post sales engineering) etc etc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
WiMAX relationships tend to be self-limiting. The good vendors are expensive and as such their customers tend to be more capable. In capable; I mean the operator has done thorough evaluations including field trials of equipment from various vendors. Developed a business plan specifically for the equipment they have selected and the market for which they plan to deploy it. Shared this business plan with the same vendor and have gotten a positive response from all before they deploy the first customer. The above is different from how most WISPs approach WiMAX. Specifically, WISPs tend to already have existing customers, networks, etc and a working business model. These WISPs tend to be looking for new technology that solves specific problems for their existing customers or allows them to better execute their existing business plan. Generally, these WISPs find that WiMAX technology fails in that regard. If you are up for what I mentioned in the first paragraph then I would suggest taking a look at Redline and Alvarion. Both vendors will likely recommend deploying their gear in a fixed architecture using 3650Mhz. You will want to understand how Redline's use of 802.16d with uplink subchannelization compares to Alvarion's use of 802.16e with diversity and how that affects your ability to deliver a specific amount of throughput to your target market. If you are more in the situation that I mentioned in the second paragraph then I would suggest taking a look at Aperto and Tranzeo. My personal recommendation would be for Redline. That is the vendor we selected and have deployed. I would also recommend that you only consider WiMAX for deployments where differentiated services are a core part of your business plan. Without differentiated services I fear WiMAX may never make sense. -Matt On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Charles Wyble wrote: Yes. I know. Which is why I asked very specific questions. I don't really care about the technology involved and am not looking for information on it. I'm asking for vendor recommendations and WISP experiences from people that have actually deployed Wimax in the 3650Mhz space. The area I'm looking to serve wouldn't be cost effective to serve via Wifi. Matt Liotta wrote: Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with the gear tend to avoid posting to threads about WiMAX because the threads quickly devolve. I suggest you read the archives of this mailing list. To summarize though; operators who use WiMAX like it and think the technology is actually different and better than what else is out there. The people who don't use WiMAX think it is overpriced and not particularly interesting. -Matt On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Charles Wyble wrote: I'm looking for more operational experience and end user experience. Certainly good technology contributes to that, but that isn't my primary goal. Michael Baird wrote: It was interesting, but I was hoping for some more first hand experience reporting. Essentially the only explanation for improved range was a lower noise floor, which isn't a wimax thing, but a 3.65 thing. I think a lot of the 802.16d/e talk is market speak, I'm trying to get through that and establish technical reasons why one or the other is superior. Regards Michael Baird So the recent thread on Wimax was quite interesting. I need to read up on the different technologies involved. I believe that a fixed deployment is sufficient for many many many needs and markets (wireless local loop if you will). If people want mobility/end user wireless they can hang an 802.11 AP off the ethernet port of whatever CPE. Wimax directly to the end device doesn't make much sense to me, in most markets and use cases. Obviously if you are supporting a highly mobile workforce (say public sector type stuff) then it makes a lot more sense. It got me thinking... if one was a new WISP entering an un(der)served market, it seems that it would not make sense to deploy standard 802.11 gear, but rather Wimax gear in 3650Mhz. Is this an accurate assessment? One particular area that I'm targeting, doesn't have any broadband available (other then 3g from Verzion). So they would need to purchase CPE anyway, and it wouldn't be anything they could get from Best Buy (DSL or Cable modem). I'm in the process of negotiating access to the excluded areas (in Southern California), but it's been slow going. Once I gain access it will open up many areas to some sorely needed competition. So who are the vendors in this space worth considering? What are peoples experiences with the sales process (both pre and post sales engineering) etc etc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:17 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: Matt, How does what you say in the first paragraph make Aperto not viable? I don't think anything from my first paragraph makes Aperto not viable. I am not sure I even like the term viable. I wouldn't suggest Aperto or recommend them as a WiMAX vendor. Of course, I don't have any direct experience with Aperto's current product line. Therefore, I can't compare and contrast their offerings to other WiMAX vendors that I do have experience with. Anecdotical evidence suggests that Aperto is not widely deployed. According to Aperto's press releases I only see one company mentioned that has deployed their WiMAX gear in the US. I don't know much about Zing to which the press release mentions. What I do know is that according to ULS they have only been approved to deploy a single Aperto radio. Further, at WiMAX World last year it seemed that Zing's CTO was employed by Aperto in sales. Compare this to Redline and Alvarion, which have lots of approved radios in ULS and multiple US customers including some large customers. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Butch Evans wrote: Matt, I apologize for the earlier post regarding your response in this thread. This post was certainly one that is helpful and addresses the questions that started the thread. I obviously missed this email before my most recent post. However, if my response was short please let me know. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Butch Evans wrote: WiMAX obviously has some things to offer. It was written specifically as an outdoor wireless specification. I think your summarization is a little short of the truth, though. It would be nice, IMO, if you, as an operator who acutally [has] experience in the field with the gear would at least answer the question instead of sitting on a high-horse. How is it short specifically? Further, I thought the actual question was which WiMAX vendors were worth considering. And, I thought I answered that question. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2009/04/20/0420airspan.html -Matt On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Pat O'Connor wrote: Anybody use Airspan for Wimax? Michael Baird wrote: It was interesting, but I was hoping for some more first hand experience reporting. Essentially the only explanation for improved range was a lower noise floor, which isn't a wimax thing, but a 3.65 thing. I think a lot of the 802.16d/e talk is market speak, I'm trying to get through that and establish technical reasons why one or the other is superior. Regards Michael Baird So the recent thread on Wimax was quite interesting. I need to read up on the different technologies involved. I believe that a fixed deployment is sufficient for many many many needs and markets (wireless local loop if you will). If people want mobility/end user wireless they can hang an 802.11 AP off the ethernet port of whatever CPE. Wimax directly to the end device doesn't make much sense to me, in most markets and use cases. Obviously if you are supporting a highly mobile workforce (say public sector type stuff) then it makes a lot more sense. It got me thinking... if one was a new WISP entering an un(der)served market, it seems that it would not make sense to deploy standard 802.11 gear, but rather Wimax gear in 3650Mhz. Is this an accurate assessment? One particular area that I'm targeting, doesn't have any broadband available (other then 3g from Verzion). So they would need to purchase CPE anyway, and it wouldn't be anything they could get from Best Buy (DSL or Cable modem). I'm in the process of negotiating access to the excluded areas (in Southern California), but it's been slow going. Once I gain access it will open up many areas to some sorely needed competition. So who are the vendors in this space worth considering? What are peoples experiences with the sales process (both pre and post sales engineering) etc etc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint Wholesale
Mike Tataris Specialized Account Manager - WSG Phone: 404-649-1521 Cell: 678-478-9132 Fax: 800-329-6882 Email: mike.tata...@sprint.com On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone have a contact at Sprint wholesale. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Ethernet
You want a pseudowire appliance that creates a T1 across an Ethernet link. Rad, Telco, and Dragonwave all make good products at reasonable prices. I have some extra ones if you want a deal. -Matt On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote: I have a customer who wants to use our towers to relay a signal between two sites so he can have a T1 equivalent. He said Wireless T1's are more expensive than a 1-10 MB Wireless Ethernet. They offered to have us buy it then charge them on it. Now I have to research this kind of product, can anyone be of assistance on this issue? Thanks, Forbes Washington Broadband, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax or AN80 has worked perfect. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like them. rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about 1hr into carrying traffic. UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. I'll update. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? Not sure how any of the above is relevant to 3.65 specifically or to where the thread veered off to. There is not going to be a wireless- based system that can compete with cable/fiber for residential use. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Might want to get a license for that. -Matt On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax or AN80 has worked perfect. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not even to lightning. These are 2.4, but still. I sure do like them. rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I put up some Ubiquiti based gear, one of the radios died about 1hr into carrying traffic. UBNT shipped me new ones to try overnight. I'll update. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment being poured into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth model and asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to realize that we do not want to spread 18 mbit across 100 customers, we want to spread 36mbit across 100 customers. I don't know any company investing huge amounts into WiMAX for last year's bandwidth model. For example, our WiMAX equipment is competing against NxDS1, which is this year's and next year's bandwidth model for every reasonably sized SMB. Go ahead and argue again that you don't sell to the same business or residential markets that those of us who have invested in WiMAX sell to. We don't want your market and we don't want the WiMAX vendors focusing on your market. We want them focusing on our market and we are putting our money where are mouth is ensuring the WiMAX vendors do focus on our market. The sum up the thread you want the radio vendors to make a product to enable your business model to thrive today and into the future. Whereas today's WiMAX operators have created a business model to thrive today and into the future based upon currently available products. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to complain. -Matt On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having enough bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 megabit. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Booher jefftho...@fastmail.fm Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base station, that only supports 30 subscribers. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I'm certainly interested in ptmp. The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. Take care leon Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I'm looking into this too. So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that tower Anyone have any better ideas? marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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
Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
Maybe the equipment isn't the problem then. -Matt On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: You're not going to get that in the residential market, which is where most of us compete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to complain. -Matt On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however. In one thread in one list we have people complaining about not having enough bandwidth to serve their customers now much less next year or the next and in the other, we have people excited about an AP that only does 18 megabit. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Not enough? You get 18 mbps in a 7 mhz channel Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? More troll than substance but I wouldn't put more than 30 users on a WiMAX AP anyway... not enough bandwidth. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Booher jefftho...@fastmail.fm Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? It is not the same gear by any means. Tranzeo's AP is a micro base station, that only supports 30 subscribers. - Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I'm certainly interested in ptmp. The Tranzeo gear is the same as Aperto isn't it? marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Ligowave its ptp in 3.65... Might wanna look at tranzeo for 3.65 ptmp Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Leon Zetekoff Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today. Take care leon Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I'm looking into this too. So far I can't find a solution for rural towers. A 3 sector install at $20k? Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that tower Anyone have any better ideas? marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Fellow operators: Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP? Any updates on experiences with: Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan ??? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
