Re: [WISPA] Credit Card Processors
This can be solves via the terms and conditions of the contract with the customer. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Credit Card Processors Because once expired, Visa or Mastercard no longer must honor it. If a chargeback happens, they may consider using an expired card as fraudulent and deny your claim. This is just my more cautious nature coming out here. Maybe your processor says no big deal. For me, Authorize.net said dont do it. -RickG On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: I've seen that before, but that wasn't what I was looking for. Either way, a charge back can happen no matter what - why would the expiration be relevant? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: My banker buddy said its between you and your credit card processor but charging to an expired card could leave you open to a charge back. I guess the safest thing to do is ask your processor. I did find the attached on Visa's website. -RickG On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Very confident that IPPay will accept past expiration dates as long none of the other information was changed. I read something about this recently but I can't seem to locate it. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: I'm speaking from experience :) Most credit cards expire in two years. So, you take their expiration date and add two years - wella, it works again! I dont know about other processors but authorize.net will not accept an expired date. -RickG On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: I don't see how you can guess it. You can have one card number not change but renew it's expiration date. Also keep in mind you can continue charging without updating information for companies just like us. On 12/13/09, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Quickbooks is great! Question though: I was told by my bank not to guess their new expiration date and that you need to get the it directly from the customer or you are subject to dispute. True of false? -RickG On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: IPPay is really cool. Expecially automatic features like figuring out the right CC exp date after it expires. We'd like to use it, if we could. But we dont use them because you really need a seperate billing system to integrate with them. We use Quickbooks for our billing, and from what I understood IPPay does not integrate with Quickbook's billing. PS. I know, why are we using Quickbooks for billing still? Resistent to change when something works, its easy, and no compelling reason to change. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Credit Card Processors IPPay. Only saved us $500 per month and we get our money in 1-2 business days (instead of 4-5 with authorize). :) :) Travis Microserv Robert West wrote: Looking at credit card processors again. Been nickled and dimed to death with 2 others. Who are you happy with and do they work with authorize.net? Bob- Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Report: Broadband stimulus funds won't suffice
Tim, Interesting quotes that you posted. I also challenge the definition of utility and what qualifies. Another subjective point of view often misunderstood, and how that translates to need and broadband. Broadband is in no way a utility either. The reason is that it has an intelligence component that cant be avoided. For example, if broadband stops working from the perspective of the user, is it within the control of that consumer to indentify the cause of failure on their own, and if it is in fact a broadband outage? How do they tell if its the PC, the PC's loaded software, a failed router, the destination web site, or the actual broadband? Every tool the end user needs to make that determination he has acces to, they just dont have the intelligence to understand how to run the tools to get the data. All it takes is a day in a phone support center to prove my point. Broadband needs support. It is unavoidable. Therefore not a basic utility. Electricity and water on the other hand is a utility, an consumers knows when it is on or off, they dont need a support center to tell them that. Sure they may want to call to get an ETA for repair, but thats about it, they know who is responsible. BRoadband is simply to technical and complicated to be classified as a utility, even if it is of similar need in some people's mind. Any time quality of support is a large part of a user's experience, it has factors that cant be measured easilly and equally for comparison to regulate what is fair price. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: Broadband stimulus funds won't suffice A flashback to 1905 ... Unless we adopt the principles of socialism, It can hardly be contended that It is the province of government, either state or municipal, to undertake the manufacture or supply of the ordinary subjects of trade and commerce, or to impose burdens upon the whole community for the supposed benefit of a few.. The ownership and operation of municipal light plants stands upon a different basis from that of the ownership of water works, with which it is so often compared. Water is a necessity to the health and life of every individual member of a community.It must be supplied in order to preserve the public health, whether it can be done profitably or not, and must be furnished, not to a few individuals, but to every individual. Electric lights are different. Electricity is not in any sense a necessity, and under no conditions is it universally used by the people of a community. It is but a luxury enjoyed by a small proportion of the members of any municipality, and yet if the plant be owned and operated by the city, the burden of such ownership and operation must be borne by all the people through taxation. Now, electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. It Is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all. and the 2009 version ... Unless we adopt the principles of socialism, It can hardly be contended that It is the province of government, either state or municipal, to undertake the manufacture or supply of the ordinary subjects of trade and commerce, or to impose burdens upon the whole community for the supposed benefit of a few.. The ownership and operation of municipal [broadband] stands upon a different basis from that of the ownership of [electric plants], with which it is so often compared. [Electricity] is a necessity to the health and life of every individual member of a community.It must be supplied in order to preserve the public health, whether it can be done profitably or not, and must be furnished, not to a few individuals, but to every individual. [Broadband is] different. [Broadband] is not in any sense a necessity, and under no conditions is it universally used by the people of a community. It is but a luxury enjoyed by a small proportion of the members of any municipality, and yet if the [network] be owned and operated by the city, the burden of such ownership and operation must be borne by all the people through taxation. Now, [broadband] is not a necessity for every member of the community. It Is not the business of any one to see that I use [broadband or dial-up] in my house, or even that I use [the Internet] at all. Here's the link to the source article: http://publicola.net/?p=20687 and the Slashdot article: http://publicola.net/?p=20687. Tim -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: Broadband
Re: [WISPA] Anyone have nanostation m5 in stock?
Is there any compelling reason to stick with the Bullet as the CPE when the CPEs are out of stock? Is the only trade off of using another pmanufacturers product during those shortage periods just that you pay $30-$50 more diring that period? There is also a flip side... When CPEs are costing $100 instead of $500, you can plan to buy 5x more stock on the same cash flow budget to hold you over through stock shortages. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have nanostation m5 in stock? I'm with ya. With MT, a 411 is around 50, the card 30 or so, then a mimo antenna ?? and shipping and you're way past the hundred. I talked to StreakWave this morning, salesman told me UBNT is making a push to always be in stock after the first of the year and if that's true, lots of my stress will be gone. We're in business to add and keep customers but it's hard to add when we can't put in a CPE and with all the substitutions I've put in it gets to be a hassle. People won't wait for an install. It's now or they go elsewhere. You know how it is, hate leaving money on the table. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have nanostation m5 in stock? Yeah, I'm doing Bullets to tide me over too. But with the bullets there's no mimo unfortunately. Sure wish there was an MT offering that had router board and radio (or RB and integrated radio) with enclosure antenna all for $100 or less. Oh yeah, and it be in stock more often then out of stock. Greg On Dec 11, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Robert West wrote: I was looking all over yesterday and the day before. Only found them in Europe so I gave up. Some UBNT stuff being delivered, from what I hear, first part of next week, dunno what though. So I'm back ordered on what I needed and installing bullets and grids till I get it. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Anyone have nanostation m5 in stock? Just need two. Greg WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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
MMmm... What does Hotel California and Wireless Execs have in common? you can check in, but you can never leave :-) Sounds like Matt is saying he still has vested interest to stay involved in RL/OR to protect his investment revenue. Matt, would you mind clarifying.When you said... have not the left the business, did you mean 1) Have not left OneRing/RapidLink, and are involved in a non-employee capacity. or that 2) Have not left the Wireless Industry. 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.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:07 AM 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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Sectors
Yes, Splurge and go 3 -120s. If you can't justify it, maybe put up one new 120 deg sector, and leave the original Omni up to cover the rest. I guess it depends on why you are needing to sectorize. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sectors 4 90's would be better... but you could make 2 120's work probably. Check the patterns, and try to align the sectors where the bulk of the customers are. MTI does have some 900MHz 180's in H-pol... Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Sectors I need to sector a tower that currently is an omni. I don't really want to go to 3x 120's but find it hard to find 180's and have heard they don't tend to work great. I have also heard 2x 120's will work, any comments? Mark WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] 5.6 GHZ?
Forbes, Historically, The FCC has usually grandfathered pre-existing installations, to protect those that have already deployed equipment. You have 250Mhz available today between 5.4g and 5.7g. My recommendation is If it works use it. If you have a airport radar system near by dont. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List ; memb...@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.6 GHZ? IMO, it is iffy for the reason you mentioned. The FCC (at the request of the FAA and the NTIA) appears ready to deny use of the 5.6 spectrum in areas where interference with airport weather radar takes place. I doubt that any WISP would ague that their use of that spectrum is more important than safe operation of commercial aircraft. I expect that newly certified 5 GHz equipment will soon (within the next year) include a updated DFS algorithm that looks for the presence of 5.6 GHz radar and switches away from 5.6 when radar is detected. Your existing equipment may remain technically legal but you do run the risk of possibly being blamed for aircraft crashes assuming you are unlucky enough to be using 5.6 near airports where you could cause actual interference to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar systems. See http://tiny.cc/LIlqB for more information. jack Travis Johnson wrote: It's iffy because the FCC allowed the specific band, and now they are trying to take it back away... two years later. If I never upgrade my radios, does that mean I'm legal to run in that specific band forever? I just don't understand how they can allow it for 2 years, and then try and take it away and think they are going to clean up the airways. Travis Microserv 3-dB Networks wrote: Motorola Canopy 5.4GHz radios updated with the latest firmware cannot transmit in the 5600-5650 part of the band. I don't understand what is iffy about the band... Canopy operators have been using it for two years or so now legally, and while DFS still has issues in its current implementation, the FCC is working to make the DFS detection better on the radio side and in turn make it harder to radio manufacturers to allow clients to avoid using DFS Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.6 GHZ? 5470 - 5725 is a legitimate band but DFS2 must be used on the radios. There is currently FCC activity to modify the DFS profiles for all newly-certified radios to avoid aircraft radar system in the 5.6 GHz part of the 5470-5725 band. The bottom line is - it's pretty iffy. jack Forbes Mercy wrote: My new MIMO radios have 5.6 GHZ on them, I don't recall that frequency being available in the US. Is it? 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com Sent from my Pizzicato PluckString... -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8
The RadWin 2000 product is easy to configure but as Josh has pointed out you must use a windows computer to configure it. I don't feel your comments help anyone and put a shadow over a good product. I'm sure the RadWin is a real nice product, and that windows only is fine for many people. But Josh's comment did help some people, such as myself, so that we can qualify whether the RadWin product is right for us. I would have been pissed if I ordered a $3k-$5k radio and then learned I couldn't use it after it arrived, because of GUI requirements. Clearly the mechanisms available to configure a radio are relevent. Support for Telnet is just as relevent as support for SNMP for example, if a WISP's Network Management design requires it. For example in our network, we insist that all critical WAN equipment that we use supports a command line interface, so it can be managed by our command line Routers, without disconnecting the radio from the router, or relying on a free port on the router that would need configured for a laptop to be connected to. Having a windows only config option does not make a product bad, but it does undisputedly limit the market potential of that product, because there are a percentage of ISPs that rely on text console management, for many reasons.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Josh, you are correct we are not the same person. I live in a world that windows is operated on 90% on all business computers. I don't live in a world of nirvana that I can use just linux and life is good. Besides if I was programming an app that I wanted to reach the majority of computers why would I program for just linux. I would program for the standard. More to the point, my review was not to hack the OS of the computer the software needed to be installed on it, it was for the equipment. I don't feel your comments help anyone and put a shadow over a good product. The RadWin 2000 product is easy to configure but as Josh has pointed out you must use a windows computer to configure it. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Software easy to use Is this the Windows only RadWin stuff still? Not sure how in the world you could call that thing easy to use, but we are not the same person. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Since we are giving recommendations I just had a RadWin 2000 FDX Link put up and with 2- 2ft FDX PacWireless Dishes. The Link is 18.2 miles. -62 both ends. Can push 42 Mbps FDX using TCP Bandwidth test on Mtiks on both ends. Link extremely stable $4000. Software easy to use. Radios so easy to setup I called Tech support and asked what I forgot. Very happy. Replaced frustrating StarOS FDX that gave me about 10 Mbps. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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
Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors
yes but, condensation can get water inside a connector, even when water submersible will not. Thick tape without air pockets is needed to solve that. 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: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors According to UBNT, their Rocket and RocketDish have an IP67 compliant connector. According to other (more reputable) companies that have IP67 radios, they're water submersible to a couple feet. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:50 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors Heat shrink doesn't work in the cold. It will get hard (the glue) and as things move in the wind etc. it'll allow water in. Been there done that. NOTHING works better than self vulcanizing rubber tape. If what you use is easy to get off it's not a good tight seal. sigh It sure can't be that hard to build a connector that seals without the tape! sigh marlon - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors Yes - hate the mess but seals the best! On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Coax-seal On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:42 PM, AJ wrote: CANUSA adhesive shrink tubing is your friend :) On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, lakel...@gbcx.net wrote: No 400 connector from any of the manufacturers is weatherproof by itself. You need to weatherproof all of your connections. If they are not getting wet you are lucky. Plain and simple. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:20:52 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors I've run out of these, and none of the vendors I use commonly carry them. Anyone out west have these? Yeah, I know, it costs more to buy two of these than a whole pre-built 10 foot cable, but every danged pre-built I buy has water issues. We have never had to seal any of the cables we built ourselves, and none of them have ever leaked (except when someone who'll forever remain nameless forgot to tighten the cable...), but I have no luck at all with the pre-made I've bought from multiple places. Our temporary site needed to go up in a real hurry, so I bought a whole pile of parts and cables, and most of them have had issues. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Times Microwave EZ connectors
We use the 3M also. We have had some water intrusion issues, but... we have almost always been able to attribute it to poor installation technique. Taping is unforgiving. When done right, it protects for like eternity. When its done poorly its lucky to last a year. Must use Mastic underneith, and UV on top. Must overlap 1/4 and position it like a shingle, so water does not run into seam but away from it. The underlayer must be stretched tight. Must extend tape to far edges w/ atleast 1 on cable side. Must avoid creating air pockets. Must have tape layers thick enough, atleast 1/8 deep or more. It also helps big time to use Scotch coat, as a third outer layer. We ahve never had a a seal fail that we had used scotchcoat. We rarely use Scotch coat anymore because its gooey and hard to work with to brush on. But its worth using for critical back hauls that you never want to have to touch again. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors Yeah, self vulcanizing rubber :-). I use this: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3MElectrical/Home/ProductsServices/Products/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20OES1_nid=0L2RH0Z4C7beV8CW66MTMZgl A royal pain to take back apart. But if it is easy to get off it's not very good of a seal :-). marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors I second this. We have used this for 5+ years now and haven't had a single water issue since we started using it. And it's cheap, and easy to work with in the summer heat and the winter cold. Travis Josh Luthman wrote: Best. Stuff. Ever. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002ZPINC/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1pf_rd_t=201pf_rd_i=B00075J4J6pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DERpf_rd_r=0YKHJM87AJ2TBD52DRE2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Rubber tape rules on this end. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors Heat shrink doesn't work in the cold. It will get hard (the glue) and as things move in the wind etc. it'll allow water in. Been there done that. NOTHING works better than self vulcanizing rubber tape. If what you use is easy to get off it's not a good tight seal. sigh It sure can't be that hard to build a connector that seals without the tape! sigh marlon - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors Yes - hate the mess but seals the best! On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Coax-seal On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:42 PM, AJ wrote: CANUSA adhesive shrink tubing is your friend :) On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, lakel...@gbcx.net wrote: No 400 connector from any of the manufacturers is weatherproof by itself. You need to weatherproof all of your connections. If they are not getting wet you are lucky. Plain and simple. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:20:52 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Times Microwave EZ connectors I've run out of these, and none of the vendors I use commonly carry them. Anyone out west have these? Yeah, I know, it costs more to buy two of these than a whole pre-built 10 foot cable, but every danged pre-built I buy has water issues. We have never had to seal any of the cables we built ourselves, and none of them have ever leaked (except when someone who'll forever remain nameless forgot to tighten the cable...), but I have no luck at all with the pre-made I've bought from multiple places. Our temporary site needed to go up in a real hurry, so I bought a whole pile of parts and cables, and most of them have had issues. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8
It was brought to my attention that I mis-understood several of the list comments regarding RadWin admin functionality, and I'd like to correct my error. RadWin does infact have a Telnet management console, for command line management also.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 The RadWin 2000 product is easy to configure but as Josh has pointed out you must use a windows computer to configure it. I don't feel your comments help anyone and put a shadow over a good product. I'm sure the RadWin is a real nice product, and that windows only is fine for many people. But Josh's comment did help some people, such as myself, so that we can qualify whether the RadWin product is right for us. I would have been pissed if I ordered a $3k-$5k radio and then learned I couldn't use it after it arrived, because of GUI requirements. Clearly the mechanisms available to configure a radio are relevent. Support for Telnet is just as relevent as support for SNMP for example, if a WISP's Network Management design requires it. For example in our network, we insist that all critical WAN equipment that we use supports a command line interface, so it can be managed by our command line Routers, without disconnecting the radio from the router, or relying on a free port on the router that would need configured for a laptop to be connected to. Having a windows only config option does not make a product bad, but it does undisputedly limit the market potential of that product, because there are a percentage of ISPs that rely on text console management, for many reasons.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Josh, you are correct we are not the same person. I live in a world that windows is operated on 90% on all business computers. I don't live in a world of nirvana that I can use just linux and life is good. Besides if I was programming an app that I wanted to reach the majority of computers why would I program for just linux. I would program for the standard. More to the point, my review was not to hack the OS of the computer the software needed to be installed on it, it was for the equipment. I don't feel your comments help anyone and put a shadow over a good product. The RadWin 2000 product is easy to configure but as Josh has pointed out you must use a windows computer to configure it. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Software easy to use Is this the Windows only RadWin stuff still? Not sure how in the world you could call that thing easy to use, but we are not the same person. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Since we are giving recommendations I just had a RadWin 2000 FDX Link put up and with 2- 2ft FDX PacWireless Dishes. The Link is 18.2 miles. -62 both ends. Can push 42 Mbps FDX using TCP Bandwidth test on Mtiks on both ends. Link extremely stable $4000. Software easy to use. Radios so easy to setup I called Tech support and asked what I forgot. Very happy. Replaced frustrating StarOS FDX that gave me about 10 Mbps. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8
Latest firmware has a spectrum analyzer built in... A real one, sorta link Trango's and Canopy's? Or just one that sees 802.11n/a devices? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Latest firmware has a spectrum analyzer built in... Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Also keep in mind someone said they bricked it while using Vista. I expect 7 to work as well if not better then Vista. I never did try WINE, but an XP VM guest works. My remark was more suggesting I do not like the menu system or layout. I found that some commands needed issued multiple times and it seemed awfully confusing when trying to set up. I would like to see a spectrum analyzer and some basic values on link quality. On 11/24/09, Patrick Shoemaker shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com wrote: Yes. Most importantly, in a pinch when you've just run over your Windows laptop with the truck on the way to the tower site, or need to make changes through a telnet session from a router, or have only your blackberry/iphone with you, etc., command line / HTTP configuration is a lifesaver. Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Kevin Neal wrote: I would rather see a web or command line instead of anything you have to install. OS independent then, as long as they don't write it specifically for IE :( -Kevin On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:00 AM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: As a Mac OS X/Windows/Linux user (OS X natively and Windows, Linux under Fusion) I'd like to see the configuration apps be universal (Java?) or something cross platform. But I realize you can't fight city hall. So I'll always have Fusion for a small handful of apps (Mapwel, Dude, WinBox). Greg On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: Josh, you are correct we are not the same person. I live in a world that windows is operated on 90% on all business computers. I don't live in a world of nirvana that I can use just linux and life is good. Besides if I was programming an app that I wanted to reach the majority of computers why would I program for just linux. I would program for the standard. More to the point, my review was not to hack the OS of the computer the software needed to be installed on it, it was for the equipment. I don't feel your comments help anyone and put a shadow over a good product. The RadWin 2000 product is easy to configure but as Josh has pointed out you must use a windows computer to configure it. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RadWin 2000 5.8 Software easy to use Is this the Windows only RadWin stuff still? Not sure how in the world you could call that thing easy to use, but we are not the same person. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Since we are giving recommendations I just had a RadWin 2000 FDX Link put up and with 2- 2ft FDX PacWireless Dishes. The Link is 18.2 miles. -62 both ends. Can push 42 Mbps FDX using TCP Bandwidth test on Mtiks on both ends. Link extremely stable $4000. Software easy to use. Radios so easy to setup I called Tech support and asked what I forgot. Very happy. Replaced frustrating StarOS FDX that gave me about 10 Mbps. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic
yes they do for $1200. each :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Radiowaves does I believe Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:26:58 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Arc wireless makes 20 and 23 db panels and pacwireless makes a 2 and 3 foot solid dish w/dual polarity. Does ANYONE make dual pol sectors for 5 ghz besides UBNT, whose antennas are made of 99 44/100 % pure unobtanium? -- From: Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:12 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Anybody have a suggestion for a 5.8 Ghz Grid Parabolic, Dual Polarity, 24 to 30 dB? Phil WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic
I dont want to speak for the person who started the thread sector question... But I'm thrilled with the UBNT's Dual POl sector option. I think the only problem is availabilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Any reason the UBNT ones are not an option or is it just availability? -original message- Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Date: 25/11/2009 3:49 am yes they do for $1200. each :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Radiowaves does I believe Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:26:58 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Arc wireless makes 20 and 23 db panels and pacwireless makes a 2 and 3 foot solid dish w/dual polarity. Does ANYONE make dual pol sectors for 5 ghz besides UBNT, whose antennas are made of 99 44/100 % pure unobtanium? -- From: Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:12 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol Grid Parabolic Anybody have a suggestion for a 5.8 Ghz Grid Parabolic, Dual Polarity, 24 to 30 dB? Phil WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] USF changes?
MDK, I welcome and incourage you to speak your mind and opinions. However, as a co-moderator, I must ask you to refrain from swearing and derogatory references in your posts. Its is clearly against List rules and not appropriate for a public list, as well as grounds for immediate list suspension. Consider this Email a final warning. Respectfully, Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? I cannot believe this. WISPA has sold it's soul to the devil, and is now preaching the message. There is NO SUCH DAMN THING AS FREE MONEY. Taking it WILL result in the feds coming and directing your business, controlling every aspect.Have you seen the news about TARP and other bailouts? This government is coming for you. It will set your rates, control your pay, and mandate your operations. Even if no such statutory obligations exist, we are no longer governed by laws or even any semblance of legislation - merely by whatever destroying you can yield in political benefits to the politicians. And if puts you under, they will dance on your grave, while they sing songs about the death of the greedy. It is IMMORAL to take this money, when we as a nation are so broke. Let someone else go to hell. I am neither fighting for it, nor would I accept it if you came to my door begging me to take a free check. I would rather go hungry and cold. Someday I will meet my Maker and I intend to say I did the right thing even when it was unpopular. Stand on principle, people, or be the same as the whores who have caused the credit crisis, currency crisis, insurance crisis, and the list goes on and on.If WISPA cannot stand on that principle, it has exactly the same qualities and virtues as the damnable souls who have created this economic mess - that is, NONE WHATSOEVER. Someone, SOMEWHERE has to. The fact that millions of us in this country did NOT is why we're in this economic mess.This has to change, and it has to change WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL OUT THERE. Be the solution, or be the cause. There's no other choices. Marlon, you and I have now parted ways. I absolutely cannot believe you would be such a whore for money, as to do immoral crap like this. As for anyone else with the same opinion?Take it the same. I don't give a flying damn if my competitors get millions.I don't even care if it results in my business failure. My conscience matters, that does not, in the overall scheme of life.Where are you going to stand? I intend to earn any dime I ever have, not by taking it in a most immoral display of theft. -- From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:15 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? Mark, we've been through all of this before. You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business. This is also NOT their problem. But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it unflat when it is in fact, flat. We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now? File the 477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to bite us in the rear ends. Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not only end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi government or flat out government entities! And WE'RE helping them by sticking our heads in the sand when they ask us for data that anyone with any desire at all can figure out anyway. Wake up already. We are loosing this fight. It's time for a new strategy. marlon - Original Message - From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their list.We cannot get onto the top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The mandates will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised by certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach the point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get concerned, they will call in the favors
Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles
Paul, I might have said the same thing 6 months ago, but thought I'd mention, we've had all our Giga's operating on the latest Firmware for about a month now. (I was a bit slow to upgrade, cause never convenient to interupt a 300mbps link). Since we switched to it, our Gigas have really been running well. Even the new adaptive modulation has worked well, and proven to upshift back to full speed, when link clears up.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles You can use Trango but don't go with their Giga product line as it has too many software issues. Apex has been solid for us. On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM, George Morris ghmor...@candlelight.ca wrote: It sure is. If ya got the bucks, Exalt or Dragonwave would be my first choices. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles that is a broad question with many possible answers. what is your budget Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:58 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net my_em...@webjogger.net wrote: Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance. Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and reliable? It can be either licensed or unlicensed. So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know which to choose. Thanks, -- Jon Roux Webjogger Internet Services http://www.webjogger.net 845.757.4000 --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch
I think Netgear has one pretty cheap. Although, used 3550's are pretty easilly found at $1500 a pop, w/ OSPF. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch Anyone know of an affordable 8 port managed switch that has 8 fiber ports? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it?
give some flexibilty to the business owner on how they account for their business. Its not always black and white. So to answer your question. Do you pay tax on every screw and Bolt? Well, that depends on how you postiion your claim. If it were me, I would not not record it as property. I'd argue that all hardware (mounts, counduit, cable, bolts) become property of the building or home owner in which it is installed into. I can back this up with some of my contracts, that state the Conduit and Masts becomes property of the building owner, and should not be removed to preserve structural integrity of the building walls. Thus an argued expense, not an asset of mine anymore. Which will allow me to deduct full cost of the item year it was purchased. You could also argue, what about gifts to customers? For example, maybe you did not sell CPE to the end user, and just give a all incompassed install fee, but maybe your contract says that after one year of service, that CPE becomes the property of the home owner? Meaning, they had to fullfil a 1 year term before they paid enough to gain ownership of such. In that case it could be argued that the ISP pays Property tax on 1/4 the property value (depreciation class of 4 years) for that item for one year, but thereafter not pay tax, because ownership transfers to the customer. For me what it boils down to is, what do I have the ability to easily track, and what is the return on investment to attempt to reduce over-taxations and have more accuracy? If someone would only save $500 in PPT by recording exact details related in accurate taxation, it might not be worth doing it, if it had a $3000 cost to perform that tracking. Sometimes you say, its an insignificant amount, and not worth worrying about, and not likely any auditor or county official would ever worry about it either. it can be hard to track what is owed in Property Tax in accounting systems, because tracking for Income and financial statements might be different than needs of Property Tax, so I track my property for Property tax seperately in a spreadsheet. I wonder how larger companies deal with this, but I assume as companies grow larger, they probably have to work with a set of assumption to better automate their tracking. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it? Tom, Your reply is the the info I was looking for. Thanks for your reply. I do believe you are correct but I'll double-check with my county and CPA. I've moved so many times around the country that I cant keep up! Just a note, we have been paying our property taxes by default because of our lessor passes it on to us. The reason I'm inquiring is in preparation for when our lease is paid off (early next year). With that said, I have an additional question: Do you pay property taxes on every screw, nut, bolt? -RickG On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: Rick, No your assumption is not true. Property Tax is applied on property. When you buy radio CPE it shows up on your financials as property, and if you TAX DEDUCT the cost of the CPE, which I sure hope you do for your benefit, you have claimed those purchases as property. A Auditor isn;t going to go look for a single small purchase. But I assure you CPEs, a line item which adds up to be a huge inaggregate cost, they will immediately see that property and recognize whether that property was declared, and property tax properly paid on it or not. As a matter of fact some counties will check you federal returns, to find your claimed deductions and depreciations, and automatically assess your property tax based on your Federal Tax Returns. SO IF your county charges Property Tax then your CPEs are TAXABLE PROPERTY UNLESS your county specifically has passsed a law to excemption radio equipment. Loudon County Virgina is one specific County that made Wireless CPE exempt from property tax to foster local investment in Broadband. I wish more counties were as insightful, because it was a very effective program. Property Tax is NOT just for large real estate. Its paid on EVERY TANGIBLE ASSET you own. That include an office chair, a computer, a telephone, a router, a CPE, what ever it is that you own. Mike, Just because nobody has been commming around asking for Property Tax on CPE does not make it not owed. Property Tax is self claimed, so the government doesn't know you have that property until they decide to audit you, or you tell them. But why do you pay any tax of any kind at all? After all, if you aren't audited you wont have to pay it? Because you know when you are audited, you'll be in big trouble if you didn't. The same applied
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
Brian, I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their data, so its a no brainer to cooperate. A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform. A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and block recipients from collecting funds. I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information without first being given the benefit of giving it away. The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible recipients. And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be given to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology. And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an area adequately served by wireless technology. Or Step4 - to create the equivellent of a ILEC, for a wireless provider. Shouldn't there be a WiLEC status? :-) When Feds give us good reason to disclose our coverage, backed by passed good legislation, I assure you WISPs will be first in line to give it. Have the feds tell usthey wont give grants to new entrants where there is already a WISP, unless to that pre-existing WISP, and I assure you WISPs will flood the info to you. But with legislation like, WISP must serve 60% of an areas to disqualify others, there is hardly a call to action to provide information. Providing that information just makes it easier for other applicants to serve our areas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? The FCC understands it very well. The problem is that WISP's are not well known as far as where, how many, and what speeds they serve..ever wonder why they have been pushing the Form 477? This yet another example of how trying to stay under the Radar is going to come back and bite the industry in the butt. Who knows, if they do a good job of USF reform and a WISP is in a very rural area, they may be entitled to RECEIVE USF funds on a monthly basis. But of course if we cannot quantify the WISP industry and/or show a good coverage area, the policy makers will have no choice but to make decisions based on what they have in front of them for information.maybe it's time to dust off the National WISP map again and do another push to improve that. Thank You, Brian Webster On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote: And they forgot all about the other ISP's out there. They are leaving it up to the telcos to supply the demand! Do they(The FCC) not understand that other companies besides the telcos and cable companies offer Internet access? Scott -- Original Message -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:49:39 -0500 Warning: The bill also drew early praise from ATT On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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
Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches
There are several classes of VLAN switches. I'll use SMC as an example... 1) They have the higher end models that are Full VLAN support that are very intuitive and fully flexible. For example, they'll allow you to label each port in web interface. They fully refer to each ports specifying their Egress and Ingress VLAn support, etc. They allow every thing to be done. But because they are intuitive, in the web interface itself, its easy to configure them without accidentally misconfiguring another clients. They make great switches that will act as both Trunk backbone switches and end location switches. 2) then they have lower end model. They let one do almost everything with VLAN. But they are way less intuitive. And they dont work as well for dual purpose, and tend to work better as a backbone or end location switch. They lack abilty to label ports.They have confusing terminology to enable or disable like VLAN Aware that may not be specific on what VLAN functionality is enabled by making it aware. It usually takes a quick read of the manual before making a config, because the logic is not straight forward. Many Web Switches are like this. SMC and Intellinet have affordable 8 port VLAN switches that are functional, but with the firmware that is equivellent to low end VLAN switches as described in #2 above. But I beleive both have text, SNMP, serial, and Web interfaces, which give them a step up over other basic web switch products. Both models sell under $200, and have atleast 2 Gigabit ports, possibly SPF ports. I just wish someone made a 8 port VLAN switch for the low dollar cost, that had the HIGH END INTUITIVE VLAN firmware, that allowed each port to be labled in software. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Nick Olsen n...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches Well, there is the Procurve 1800-8G that is 8 ports gigabit, Management is a little light, but it will do the simple stuff. like vlans and such. They are fanless and we have them on towers, bullet proof all day long. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:53 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches I'm looking for suggestions for small (8+ ports) Managed switches. They would be installed in NEMA 4 un-cooled enclosures in the Texas heat. -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] USF changes?
Arrg, I respectfully disagree. Sitting back idle and watching a bank get robbed or a person get mugged, is it an exceptable answer to say, I didn't ask for the money for my self so its OK to sit idle and watch others create crimes? Its just as wrong to sit back and watch 7 billion dollars of public money be spend poorly and given to the wrong people and for wrong purposes without atleast standing up and trying to influence better ways for it to be spent and allocated for the purpose it was intended for. I ask for handouts because I am confident that if I get a handout, I'll spend that money better and more favorably than the other persons that might have gotten the handouts. And I'm sure most people that applied for handouts feel the same way, that they'd spend it better and wiser themselves. We have a responsibilty to ask for it, and influence who gets it, to help guarantee its spent wisely. Ignoring the money will not result in the money being returned, or being well spent. I was very proud of the first half of my adult life, I did it my way, and never asked for a dime from nobody. But there became a period in my life when I learn that accepting help is not a dirty word, and asking for help was an even less dirty word. More good can be accomplished with a team. Will we get help from the government? Is the Government the best team member? I really dont know. What I can tell you is that the chances that I'll ever see a dime of this money is a thousand to one, but that does not stop me from wanting to be involved, and by going into it with that acceptance of the odds, there is nothing to loose by trying. What I can also say is that its not all about me, or for that matter you, and whether you or I benefit. Maybe it really is about the public benefiting. You can preach your anti-government rhetoric all you want, and there may even be some truth to it, but at the end of the day, I can guarantee you only one thing. That is $7 billion dollars will be spent. Because of that, it is inevitable that there will be a percentage of American and Commuities that will newly gain broadband. And after considering the economic development benefit, regardless of the cost and efficiency of the money spent, there will be an ROI eventually. At this stage, I'm not confident if any WISPA member will be helped. But at the end of the day, I will be proud of the way I spent my time, because I know that I didn't just sit back and watch, but actually helped increase the chance to get money in the hands of people that I respect and trust to be most worthy to spend the money for the public good, and their own. I'm very interested to see who Round1 winners end up being. And lobby effort for Round2 has now started, and WISPA will continue to lead the effort to influence possitive change, and optimize chances for its members to particpate and gain help. I believe the same applies to USF. We can stand by and watch, or we can attempt to influence. And whether or not we become benefactors is not the only measure of success for our efforts. Sometimes simply influencing possitive change in some capacity is enough to make it all worth it. When it comes to USF, one option is to tell them to drop the program, and stop regulating. But once again, probably not a wise approach. USF is in the hotseat for a change, and Broadband to Rural America is on the top of the legislators' and FCC's list, and looking for a way to pay for it. USF is one way that burdens Tax Payer's less. Its going to be very convenient to extend USF to broadband in my opinion. And I wouldn't be surprised if they try and throw VOIP providers into the list of contributors. If we dont speak up, the only option is we'll get the shaft. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? Yes, they do understand it. You're not understanding the point.The telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators. We do not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their list.We cannot get onto the top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can legally bribe a bunch of government agencies. There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The mandates will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised by certain individuals will never EVER happen. And, should it ever reach the point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated. Welcome to the new generation of thug politics in DC. Just look what's happening to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc.You exist to benefit our political aspirations. The moment you fail in that regard, you
Re: [WISPA] USF changes?
This is the critical phrase The measure will expand who pays into the fund Anyone know the answer? This is good if it makes high volume DSL and Cable Co to continue to pay USF fees. But not so good if it makes suburban WISPs have to start paying into the fund. Its a competitive advantage that WISPs dont have to pay the 5% USF tax currently, and needed advantage in the very competitive served markets, since WISPs are usually under dogs in their market. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes? Warning: The bill also drew early praise from ATT On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3847366/Lawmakers+Float+Bill+to+Boost+Rural+Broadband.htm I'm not sure I need any more gov. interference! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] customers dogs chewing on CAT5
OR one can just do a professional install job, and not have loose cables, and properly stable/fasten all cables flush to surfaces every three feet, and run behind walls, and under trims, etc. Dogs have never been a threat to my installs. Sure a Dog might chew a 6ft Patch Cable, but thats an easy fix, and easilly verified by end user. Now on the other hand a Weed Eater? We've had a few cut by lawn care, when the weeds grew up to the trim edge, cause they dont even know the cable is there, and accidentally get it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5 Feed and Grain stores sell bitters, but I find that any determined dog will ignore the bitters and chew away. In fact, just this morning I coincidentally happened to have some bitters (gf bought it a while back) and thought oh what the hell and sprayed it on something a dog was chewing on. The dog went right back to it, licked it, shook his head, licked his chops, and licked the wood again. Kept doing this, whining at times, until it was all clean and he could chew again ;-). However, I *have* found that Habanero Tabasco Hot Sauce works 100% of the time. That's like 10,000 times hotter than normal jalapeno hot sauce and they do not like and do not go back for a second lick. Chuck On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Greg wrote: Your local feed and grain or pet store should have aerosol dog repellent. Greg On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: I've had several customers that have had their dog chew on the Cat5 going from the house to the TV tower and some of them multiple times. Anyone have ideas on how to keep the dog from chewing on the wire? I've got one customer on their 3rd Cat5 run and going out right now to replace a different customer that will be his 3rd one as well. I'm about ready to shoot the stinking dog.. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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/ -- 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] CPE - who buys it?
companies invest in Broadband, but they were first in line to ask for $130 million in Federal grants to help pay for Broadband. In Summary, PPT was a big problem for me when I OVER PAID my PPtaxes, and the County actually owed me money. Just think how hard Tax Collectors will come after you if they learn you have not paid anything at all, and possibly guilty of Tax evading? If you haven;t paid to date, I wouldn;t recommend going back in time and bringing it up. But I'd highly recommend that you start reporting your current year property purchases, and establishing a method to track what would be owed on an on going basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it? Also note that many leases pass the property taxes on to leasee, so you may not escape it that way either. But, that takes me to another question (more likely for my CPA). Doesnt property taxes only apply to higher dollar items that are usually on a depreciation scheule? In other words, if you are expensing CPE straight off the books, then property tax does not apply? -RickG On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: It should be noted that if you buy CPE and keep ownership of CPE, you are likely open to pay Property Tax on it. In MD that equates to about 3% x 4 years. As well if you own it, it is not covered by the customer's home owner insurance if stolen or damaged by weather or other acts of god. (Not that Customers often are willing to claim it.) Having the customer own it, reduces a WISP's assets. Some lease types solve that problem, simply turning CPE into an expense. After the three years, if you bought it from the Leasor, you could list it on your books at depreciated value (near nothing) tax free, and could also list it on your balance sheeet, showing the retail value and depreceiated value, as an Asset that still has a perceived value, even if depreciated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] CPE - who buys it?
Quick Clarification As far as I know Personal Property Tax is a County Tax, and taxation is under the jurisdiction of the County Code, so its possible some states or Counties might not have a Personal Property Tax on anything. However, in our case the State collect Property Tax on behalf of the Counties. Many Counties get the majority of their income from Property Tax. With the Housing market crash, and falling property values, Counties have lost a huge percentage of their income, and usually in somewhat of a budget crisis because of it. For this reason it very possible that they might have their auditors look harder to areas other than Real Estate, to look for unreported taxable property. Just something to be concious about. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE - who buys it? Rick, No your assumption is not true. Property Tax is applied on property. When you buy radio CPE it shows up on your financials as property, and if you TAX DEDUCT the cost of the CPE, which I sure hope you do for your benefit, you have claimed those purchases as property. A Auditor isn;t going to go look for a single small purchase. But I assure you CPEs, a line item which adds up to be a huge inaggregate cost, they will immediately see that property and recognize whether that property was declared, and property tax properly paid on it or not. As a matter of fact some counties will check you federal returns, to find your claimed deductions and depreciations, and automatically assess your property tax based on your Federal Tax Returns. SO IF your county charges Property Tax then your CPEs are TAXABLE PROPERTY UNLESS your county specifically has passsed a law to excemption radio equipment. Loudon County Virgina is one specific County that made Wireless CPE exempt from property tax to foster local investment in Broadband. I wish more counties were as insightful, because it was a very effective program. Property Tax is NOT just for large real estate. Its paid on EVERY TANGIBLE ASSET you own. That include an office chair, a computer, a telephone, a router, a CPE, what ever it is that you own. Mike, Just because nobody has been commming around asking for Property Tax on CPE does not make it not owed. Property Tax is self claimed, so the government doesn't know you have that property until they decide to audit you, or you tell them. But why do you pay any tax of any kind at all? After all, if you aren't audited you wont have to pay it? Because you know when you are audited, you'll be in big trouble if you didn't. The same applied to Property Tax. The burden is on the Property Owner to know the law and properly report Tax, or it is illegal TAX Evading, if the owner does not report it. Yes, I've fully qualified the above with attorneys and accountants. I learned this the hard way. I originally over paid my property taxes, because I didn't know the laws. When I learned I over paid, I stopped reporting and paying Property tax. I got audited by the county, and they decided to estimate my Property Tax based on data reported on my income tax returns, which was about 10 times more than I actually owed. The way it work is, you pay everything the government claims, and then if you protest the amounts and win, they'll send you a refund. I made the mistake of fighting the process, and when I didn't pay the wrong amounts, they simply immediately cancelled my corporate status, reported it to credit agencies, and made it impossible for me to get a LOAN for over 1.5 years. I couldn't even renew my ARIN IP, until I got it cleared up. The reason you report Property Tax on CPE is so you can report the correct amounts. The government does not have access to the fact to assess a correct amount and will always grossly over estimate. You should also include a letter explaining anything that might look odd. This is the thing Property Tax is paid to the State that the property is located and installed in. So if you are a Pennsylvania business, and buy equipment from California, and install the CPE into Maryland, you pay Property Tax on that CPE to Maryland. The problem here is that most WISPs dont track where they will install a CPE at the time they buy bulk CPE, so there is usually not a good record of where to pay tax to. SO... IF you buy 100 CPEs and Pay Tax on 100 CPEs to your State, and then isntall 30 of those CPEs in another State, you owe that second State Property Tax for 30 CPEs. This means that you are at risk of paying Tax TWICE, if you do not properly track where property resides and break tax payments down appropriately to match. This is one of the reasons I am against tracking an ISP's end user
Re: [WISPA] NTIA / RUS - Request for Information for 2nd Round Released
WISPA as well will be filing comments, and have been patiently waiting this anticipated ROI. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: memb...@wispa.org ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: [WISPA] NTIA / RUS - Request for Information for 2nd Round Released We will be filing comments, so if you want to add your “2 cents” on the process, let me know and we’ll be more than happy to incorporate your thoughts Agencies Plan to Consolidate Final Two Funding Rounds, Seek Comment on Program Enhancements WASHINGTON – The USDA‟s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department‟s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced they are streamlining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act‟s broadband grant and loan programs by awarding the remaining funding in just one more round, instead of two rounds, to increase efficiency and better accommodate applicants. The agencies also announced they are seeking public comment on how best to administer the second round of funding for the programs in order to improve the applicant experience and maximize the ability of the programs to meet Recovery Act objectives. “Stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide us with well-informed feedback on how the first round worked for applicants, the agencies will be able to make improvements to the process, and potential applicants will gain more time to form partnerships and create stronger project proposals. Ultimately, this approach can help us run the programs with increased efficiency and produce better results for the American public,” Strickling said. In a Request for Information (RFI) released today, the agencies are seeking feedback on procedural and policy aspects of BIP and BTOP. While inviting general input on the programs, the agencies identified specific areas for comment. In terms of procedural matters, for example, the RFI seeks input on ways to streamline the application process while still ensuring that the agencies obtain the information necessary to make awards in accordance with statutory requirements. The RFI also asks whether the agencies can better balance the public‟s interest in transparency and openness with stakeholders‟ legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary data. Among policy matters raised, the RFI seeks comment on how to best target the remaining funds to achieve the goals of the Recovery Act. Commenters proposing a more targeted approach are asked to quantify the impact of their proposal based on metrics such as the number of end users or community anchor institutions connecting to service, the number of new jobs created, and the projected increase in broadband adoption rates. The RFI asks whether to focus second round funding on projects that create “comprehensive communities” by installing high capacity middle mile facilities between anchor institutions that bring essential health, medical, and educational services to citizens. The RFI also invites input on various other issues, including whether the definition of “remote area,” which is used to determine grant eligibility under BIP, is too restrictive, how the agencies can best ensure that investments are cost effective, and ways the programs might impact regional economic development and stability. RUS and NTIA will utilize the feedback received in response to the RFI to set the rules for the second funding round, which the agencies expect Charles Wu President c...@ippay.com cell: 773-870-0962 • office: 847-346-0990 x2500 16W235 83rd Street, Suite A, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 • tel: 847.346.0990 fax: 847.346.0991 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/image001.jpg WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Wind Load 60cm (2') Parabolic Dish
If you go to www.radiowavesinc.com they have detailed windload specsheets for their parabolic dishes. http://www.radiowavesinc.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi/Technical+Stuff/Antenna+Patterns http://www.radiowavesinc.com/patterns/Parabolic%20Antennas%20Windloading.pdf But it could be a bit different dependant on the Dish. Radomes make a huge difference. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Ed Spoon - Computer Sales Services, Inc. ed.sp...@cssla.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:50 PM Subject: [WISPA] Wind Load 60cm (2') Parabolic Dish Anyone have a breakdown on this somewhere? Showing wind load at various wind speeds? Thanks WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] CPE - who buys it?
It should be noted that if you buy CPE and keep ownership of CPE, you are likely open to pay Property Tax on it. In MD that equates to about 3% x 4 years. As well if you own it, it is not covered by the customer's home owner insurance if stolen or damaged by weather or other acts of god. (Not that Customers often are willing to claim it.) Having the customer own it, reduces a WISP's assets. Some lease types solve that problem, simply turning CPE into an expense. After the three years, if you bought it from the Leasor, you could list it on your books at depreciated value (near nothing) tax free, and could also list it on your balance sheeet, showing the retail value and depreceiated value, as an Asset that still has a perceived value, even if depreciated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Hotspot Client
On a side note... Titan stocked these for a while, and then discontinued them, I think because they got the newer brand of Dual Pol that supported simultaneous use of both Pols. But I was told by Titan that they would likely order more for someone, if they needed them custom ordered. These weren't good for field maintenance, because like trangos had like 12 or so small screws to remove, and internal elements, to get to teh radios boards. But they are great for the purpose to replicate a trango model, where a fix is typically a complete radio replacement. These cases fit a MT 433AH with 2 mPCIs radios perfectly. We'd put the primary radio with both antenna connectors to each of the polarities. Then the Second radio we'd buy one of the mikrotik radios with a SINGLE antenna port. To that we'd plug a pigtail with a bulkhead Nconnetor connected to the case that we drilled. These made great Relay radio cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot Client If you find them let me know...I have been keeping an eye out myself. 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 Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.comwrote: I like the NS2loco suggestion... anyone have a handy little desk mount for the radio? Something with a little weight on bottom and small pipe to tie wrap radio to then on desk they can aim it in the direction it works best. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot Client I am... my guess is when some of these muni-mesh networks went belly up... these things were on the street cheap brand new. So its probably new old stock... that's a great price on them. Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:56 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot Client You referring to this? http://www.wlanparts.com/product/MM2211-DZ?meta=FRGutm_source=GBASEutm_med ium=CPCutm_content=utm_campaign= Looks like it's well under $100. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 12:28 PM To: n...@brevardwireless.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot Client Ruckus Metroflex. That is what most Muni-Wifi deployments use. They will be right at the $100 mark or a little bit more Tessco should have good pricing on them. Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:19 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot Client So it seems that more often then not I run into the person that is right on the edge of our hotspot coverage. Normally they hear us pretty well, but we don't hear them that great. AP, is stronger then a laptop so it happens. We are looking for a client, USB, Ethernet anything. That is cheap (Less then about $100) anything that works well and is a little more juiced up then most laptops with built in wireless. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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
Re: [WISPA] Who makes this Dual-Pol 5.8GHz 18dBi Panel?
How many DB were the 900Mhz elements? 10? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Rice paul.r...@boomerang-networks.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who makes this Dual-Pol 5.8GHz 18dBi Panel? Hey guys, They already gone, sorry. But, I have some good news, I had 50+ of the enclosures with 900MHz antenna elements, that I dropped off at titanwireless, If you guys want to get those and talk to superpass for antenna elements, there would be a good deal to be had. Also I dropped off 20 ituner mini-box Alix (WRAP boards) outdoor enclosures brand new in the box. Yeah they are the same as the pictures posted on the list. If there is a big demand for these, I can forward your info to my Chinese go-between. btw, I've got some a good qty of 2.4 to 902-928 frequency converters that put out up to 1 watt. now that 900 mhz cards are available, I don't have a use for them and would let them go very easily. -- From: Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:54 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who makes this Dual-Pol 5.8GHz 18dBi Panel? Are they exactly the same? Do you have a picture? If so, yeah, I'll probably take them. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Paul Rice paul.r...@boomerang-networks.com wrote: I used to get them from China. Heck, I've got 8-10 of them sitting around still in the box. Want em? -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:15 PM To: Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who makes this Dual-Pol 5.8GHz 18dBi Panel? Iirc Those were an European knock off of the trango ap antenna enclosure Similar to trango but not an exact copy Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Nov 4, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: We have a couple of these, that I think we bought from Titan Wireless years ago. They don't work well for simualtaneous dual-pol operation, but having the ability to switch back and forth is excellent. They look kinda like what Trango was using, I think. Anyone else use them, or know who makes them, or where we could buy a couple more? [image: ? ui= 2v iew= att th= 124c008fa82282ecattid=0.1disp=attdrealattid=ii_124c008fa82282eczw] [image: ? ui= 2v iew= att th= 124c00924c58a1f4attid=0.1disp=attdrealattid=ii_124c00924c58a1f4zw] [image: ? ui= 2v iew= att th= 124c0094cee1f93eattid=0.1disp=attdrealattid=ii_124c0094cee1f93ezw] Thanks! Jayson 2.jpg 1.jpg 3.jpg --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version
Re: [WISPA] More FCC news
Scottie, First, at only $250 to join, its impossible to get burned by joining WISPA. Thats what, 2 hours of billable labor? This year in government (and FCC) is the busiest year yet. There is no second chance, its happening now, this year, defining our future. If you are serious about protecting your future, you definately should join WISPA today, and pitch in your $250 towards the cause. There is NOTHING to loose by helping financially empowering us. But there is a lot to loose if our industries voice is not heard. But dont just rely on WISPA, WISPA is just ONE effort to make sure atleast ONE unified opinion will get heard. We need exactly what you said, we need each and every WISP to comment, and We need to educate the public. I'd argue the public could be our worst enemy, simply because the public does have influence, and the public very well might not understand our position. The truth is the average public understands how to walk into Best Buy and choose between Verizon, ATT, and Sprint. And they understand the difference between paying $20/month less or not. But there is another percent of population that does understand us. Its our client base. There is a big scare in lobbying, Its that accomplishing HALF of our goal, will hurt us more than help us. Meaning the goal is we need more spectrum. But if we ONLY win the first half of the battle of identify spectrum and make it avalable in some capacity to the industry, it simply opens up that spectrum for our competitors to buy. Giving our competitors more spectrum to compete against us. We ONLY win when we also win the second half of the battle which is to allocate more spectrum to Small Wireless ISP entreprenures.. Winning half the battle of we need help does little good, if we dont win the second half of the battle which is small local wireless ISPs need help. Right now the government understood consumers need help to get broadbnad. But they have not publically acknowledged the concept that small local WISPs need help, so consumers can be better served. Who can best serve ALL Americans? Just like some are against Big Government, I'd argue I'm against Big ISP. Big government typically fosters Big ISP. We need to change that mentality. I'd like to point out an example. Go find a small under served warehouse or office complex. Pretend to be management, and ask everyone of the tenants, we'd like to expand broadband here, who do you want us to ask to come serve the premise? How many will say Comcast? How many will say FIOS? How many will really say That small local WISP down the street? WISPs are looked at as the second best alternative. Actually not even the second best, probably the last choice next to Satelite. EVERY SINGLE DAY I work my butt off to change that perception. I should be the first choice, I deserve to be! And I bet there are a lot of WISPs that feel the same way, or they wouldn't be in this business. Until the rest of the world sees that, we will remain the underdog. So yes, I agree, we need our clients calling Congress and FCC telling them to start supporting and empowering their preferred provider, the Small local WISP, so we have the tools we need to finish the job. BUt lets not fool our selves, this is NOT an easy sell. Everyone of these people probably have 3-4 cell phones in their household, and are starting to experience the power of mobility. And they are still willing to fork out $300-400/ month to cover those phone bills. They want Cell Providers to have more spectrum, so they can have faster service, and more competition to drive the price down. If you think about it, NOT ALLOCATING any spectrum would probably be the LEAST RISK thing for WISPs. MObile carrier networks WILL get congested with only the spectrum they have now. And it really isn;t competition to WISPs because of that. But give Cell carriers 200 mhx more spectrum, and NOT give any to WISPS, and that could be devasting to our industry! What w need IN PRINT ON THE RECORD for the National broadband plan, from the FCC and Feds saying yes we get it, we need to better empower small local ISP, and give THEM the spectrum and financial help they need, Small Local provider are the cornerstone to smart successful broadband deployment, to best meet the needs of local communities. Until that happens, its a very tough situation in front of us. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] More FCC news Typical, how many can believe that these guys pushing this: The plan would involve the FCC buying spectrum back from TV folk and then auctioning it off to wireless folk make at least a $100,000 clear a year? Plus the lobbyist and what they make? We pay their salaries as American citizens! Most
Re: [WISPA] Long 5Ghz link over water
I do have a TLink-45 pair sitting around (non connectorized) that I could test. Is there a hack to put a pigtail on these? 23 miles is pushing the range of the internal antennas. If the enclosure is removed from the antenna, by undoing the 9 screws, it is possible to connect the Tlink to an external antenna in a temporary way. It has the standard internal MCX connectors same as all the other 5830 radios have inside. BUT, the jack are soldered directly to teh Mainboard, and lined up to slide into the plugs hard fastened on the antena, So the depth of the MCX jack is really tight to the side that would be facing the antenna, with only like a millimeter clearance or so. So it is NOT possible to plug in a MCX pigtail to it and still screw to the antenna or put a flat back plate. So only way to keep a pigtail on (external antenna) is if the radio is left open. As well the Radio then would have no way to mount to a pole, as the mounts are on the antennas. BUT, you could leave the Tlink open with the pigtail, and put the whole Tlink inside a larger enclosure. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Long 5Ghz link over water 2009/10/28 Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net: Its relevent to disclose the radio OS type using. (You stated using a R5H a Mikrotik card, but weren't clear if using Mikrotik OS). The symptom you are explaining sounds similar to how some of my Mikrotik OS units had responsed to noise. Basically they kept dropping speed until they disconnected. It was like watching a clock tick down to zero, and repeat. I had this problem recently with 900Mhz and MIkrotik, and the problem was curred as soon as I switch to a different brand product. I'm suspect, but not verified, nor conclusive, that it could be a Mikrotik driver issue. The point I'm making is that you are likely getting some sort of noise or multi-path (self noise), but the overall problem may not be the noise/multi-path but instead the inabilty of your product to adequately deal with that noise/multipath RF conditions. Yup, it is Mikrotik 4.1 at both ends, on Routerboard 433AH boards, fed by a 24v DC plant (batteries and charger). The easiest place to do a science project probably isn't between two towers seperated by a 20 mile body of water, but it would make for a very interesting and meaningful science project. The link doesn't have traffic over it, the site is currently fed by a T1, so I have some time to play mad scientist without any negative effects to customers. Sure a Mimo card w/ Dual Pol (for single stream) or Space Diversity would likely help deal with Multipath. But what I wonder is whether the same bad results are replicated with other single channel products of similar spec. It would be interesting to put up a Tlink-45, get results of it's noise survey scan, and see if it overcomes the problem. Or even try a StarOS box. Its also relevent to understand how much of the issue is canceled RF, and how much is side effects of 802.11 CDMA? I'm wondering if a TDD system w/ good ARQ better handles it. I do have a TLink-45 pair sitting around (non connectorized) that I could test. Is there a hack to put a pigtail on these? If the power is turned down on the troublesome end, only possible during the times of day when the RX level is decent, the bandwidth test runs faster and longer before it drops to nothing. This might make the link usable, if Mikrotik had some sort of variable transmit power control to maintain 10-20db SNR. My point here is in an ideal world a radio should never have the characteristic to start at 6mb and slowly go to Zero. Instead it should stay at 6mbps, and just have a very high error count. Even if it has 50% packet loss it should stay associated, and with a TDD system w/ARQ it likely would.. When performing the test, the amount of retransmissions push the data rate down from 54 to progressively lower modulation speeds. I am running 5Mhz channels (tried 10, and 20) so this explains the progressive drop to low throughput and ultimate disconnection in my mind. Also note, if Using Mikrotik, they now support Atheros's threshold feature, to mask out weak signals, this can help reduce multipath signal. (although use cutiously as there can be significant fade of water with Fog/Clouds/evaporation/Solar and such.) Obviously if you switched to a TDD MIMO system, you'd optimize your chance for success, but you would not be able to learn what factor most helped the improvement. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Time Running Out for Trade Show Survey
Butch, There are many venues to get quality MT content for example, I'd rather WISPA push content that WISPs cant get anywhere else to push a stronger call to action to come. I don't understand this statement at all. I am assuming you mean you would like to see content in this show that isn't being presented elsewhere. If so, what, SPECIFICALLY, would you suggest? To explain what I means. Quality Mikrotik Training available at... 1. Butch Evans training acadame (I've seen your name many times on for pay training). 2. Dennis Webinars training, 3. Microik MUMs 4. Eje's training camps. Etc etc etc etc. If I want Mikrotik training, it will take me about 2 minutes to go find some. That is a COMPLIMENT to Mikrotik that they are developing such a strong support/training base in the USA. So what I'm saying is that a WISPA show would not be a unique show of New content if it just became another standard Mikrotik training siminar. (I'd love to see Mikrotik specific training as either a parallel thread or piggy back as a day before/after main show.) I do NOT mean to say that Mikrotik shouldn;t have any involvement or session. Mikrotik should have as much opportunity for exposure as any other vendors, and maybe even more because we have so many vendor members that sell Mikrotik. And we have so many GOOD Mikroik training people as resources to WISPA. I'm simply suggesting that we look for unique content. I suggested MPLS, because I have not seen many sessions on MPLS at shows I attended. Its also a feature that I think many WISPs dont use yet, because its new, and ironically its probably one of the most unique things about Mikrotik. I can tell you if there was a MPLS for Mikrotik Session, I would surely attend it. But you know, you are probably the better one to ask what is unique Mikrotik training? Because you provide so much training, you probably know what you have covered and haven't? What are your suggestions? But I'm also not saying it is easy to come up with unique topics, that is the big challenge of doing a great show. I think the content should include some technical discussions with specific products or technologies. To use the example you brought up, MPLS, we could build a small MPLS network using Mikrotik and Cisco or any other product. There could be a couple of sessions explaining the technology, THEN we could provide a breakout session where people could come in and experiment under the direction of someone who is knowledgeable in the particular area. This could be a vendor, consultant or end user. It wouldn't matter WHO provided the configuration, but someone who could answer questions about the demo. I don't see this as pushing a vendor specific content as much as USING a known vendor for a particular technology. I think that is an EXCELLENT idea as a format for the session. Back to reality, it could be Canopy, Mikrotik (nstreme) and maybe Alvarion or some others. Each could offer a short pitch of what makes their solution better (about 5 minute limit each) and the remainder of the session could be QA. Attendees would love that. Although not sure many vendors would like that. But You did hit on a hot new topic of polling TDD. The new trend is methods to mimic TDD, with hacked 802.11a MACs. Polling is not a new idea, if go back to Karlnet, Trango, even Waverider. But there are surely new implentations of it. We can use Ubiquiti's Airmux's new technique, or Mikrotik's NStreme, or Ligowave's proprietary MAC. I guess TDD and Polling are two different things, but its still the same kind if topic. It would be interesting to get the low down on the new technology. And compare how they stacked up to the old methods. Although that might needs some prior RD testing to gather data before the presentation. Or we just let the Vendors come tell us more about their new methods. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time Running Out for Trade Show Survey On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:08 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: Not that I'm generally a fan to push MT or vendor specific content. I disagree with your assessment here. More on that below. There are many venues to get quality MT content for example, I'd rather WISPA push content that WISPs cant get anywhere else to push a stronger call to action to come. I don't understand this statement at all. I am assuming you mean you would like to see content in this show that isn't being presented elsewhere. If so, what, SPECIFICALLY, would you suggest? I think the content should include some technical discussions with specific products or technologies. To use the example you brought up, MPLS, we could build a small MPLS network using Mikrotik and Cisco or any other product
Re: [WISPA] 5.8 Omni
I'd be cautious about those Pancake shaped OMNI patterns at 16 DB. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] 5.8 Omni I need a 5.8 Omni to feed some smaller sites via WDS, looking for some recommendations was hoping for 16 db but can't seem to find any. Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
Matt, I find it incredably interesting and clever that you have managed to operate your network on private IP addresses. However, the problem you are running into now is one common reason others have given in to using public IP addresses. Having public IPs throughout your transport network is not necessary, we use all private IPs for all our radios. But there is a large risk not giving end users, or small groups of end users their own public IP space. The inherent problem is, that if one person causes an AUP violation, it risks ALL subs. There becomes a point where you grow large enough that your volume then increases the chances of someone making a violation, where that risk puts to many existing customers at risk to everyone else. The two most common situations are... Sending Email. and Reported as a BitTorrent users. Large ISPs are becomming much quicker to simply immediately block an IP assumed to be a potential threat. The risk can be reduced by devidign your network into multiple smaller groups and assigning multiple public IPs each to one of these groups. Now when there is a problem, fewer customers are effected, and lower odds that group will have one detected. I can tell you in our world, if we have a business sub get their traffic blocked/compromised because of the usage of another business, it quickly leads to letter of cancellation. Its a common reason that WISPs will eventually convert to public IPs, and leverage BGP to bypass being held hostage by upstream providers. But even still it adds a level of inflexibilty for internal network IP assignment. Ironically, you probably have less BitTorrent problems, considering your Private IP sceam. What this really is is a NetNeutrality issue. Yahoo,Google, and Hotmail have the rights to methods of Network Management. And there is a concensus between them that this method of network management is an acceptable best practice, and its your problem if you NAT all your users to a few IPs. You'll also see problems with poor rankings with IP Reputation methods of Anti-spam. Another issue to consider is that Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google prefer to know exactly where the end user resides, so they can better direct advertisement. NATing your customer base to a single NOC location, is distruptive to their long term advertizing goals for target marketing. Its likely this battle wont end here with this insodent. IF your problems are primarilly Email related, you can try to signup for feedback loops to help, and make sure SPF records are valid, valid PTRs and stuff. But if just to web sites, well, not sure their is an answer other than to change the source IP address for the traffic. In that scenario you may want to setup some sort of load balancing routine, to redirect outbound sessions to different source IPs or Proxy servers. A problem where we see it is with Hotels. We'll give a few IPs to the Hotel, and then NAT to all their rooms. When one of the overnight guests decides to download a copyrighted movie, we get an AUP notice, and ahve to react. Obviously for a Hotel, we ahve no way to contact that subscriber or know who it is for Hotel confidentiality reasons. Sometimes upstreams might just block that Public IP that serves them, if they didn't like our answer. Then the whole Hotel will have problems. (The preferred solution is for us to block access to the offending host site). This is one reason many Hotel Hotspot providers try to ask for full Class C PUBLIC IP blocks for their circuits. Then only the one room gets blocked if they violate AUP. This has not been a big problem, because my upstream is easy to work with and rarely blocks traffic. But this situation demonstrates my point. Good luck with it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address on our NAT server. If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to publics anytime soon. I also loathe PPPoE and have worked with a couple of people who tried to convert to it and converted back as soon as they could because it just didn't work as well as advertised. YMMV, but I'm just fine not using it. NAT has been
Re: [WISPA] Long 5Ghz link over water
Its relevent to disclose the radio OS type using. (You stated using a R5H a Mikrotik card, but weren't clear if using Mikrotik OS). The symptom you are explaining sounds similar to how some of my Mikrotik OS units had responsed to noise. Basically they kept dropping speed until they disconnected. It was like watching a clock tick down to zero, and repeat. I had this problem recently with 900Mhz and MIkrotik, and the problem was curred as soon as I switch to a different brand product. I'm suspect, but not verified, nor conclusive, that it could be a Mikrotik driver issue. The point I'm making is that you are likely getting some sort of noise or multi-path (self noise), but the overall problem may not be the noise/multi-path but instead the inabilty of your product to adequately deal with that noise/multipath RF conditions. The easiest place to do a science project probably isn't between two towers seperated by a 20 mile body of water, but it would make for a very interesting and meaningful science project. Sure a Mimo card w/ Dual Pol (for single stream) or Space Diversity would likely help deal with Multipath. But what I wonder is whether the same bad results are replicated with other single channel products of similar spec. It would be interesting to put up a Tlink-45, get results of it's noise survey scan, and see if it overcomes the problem. Or even try a StarOS box. Its also relevent to understand how much of the issue is canceled RF, and how much is side effects of 802.11 CDMA? I'm wondering if a TDD system w/ good ARQ better handles it. My point here is in an ideal world a radio should never have the characteristic to start at 6mb and slowly go to Zero. Instead it should stay at 6mbps, and just have a very high error count. Even if it has 50% packet loss it should stay associated, and with a TDD system w/ARQ it likely would.. Also note, if Using Mikrotik, they now support Atheros's threshold feature, to mask out weak signals, this can help reduce multipath signal. (although use cutiously as there can be significant fade of water with Fog/Clouds/evaporation/Solar and such.) Obviously if you switched to a TDD MIMO system, you'd optimize your chance for success, but you would not be able to learn what factor most helped the improvement. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] Long 5Ghz link over water I have a 23 mile link completely over water that I cannot get stable. One end is approx 200ft AGL, 220ft ASL, the other end is 50' AGL, 90' ASL. Antennas are V-Pol 29dbi grids, radios are R5H cards. I have tried the link at both 5.2, and 5.8, but it still fluctuates dramatically. When the antennas were installed and configured for a 5Mhz channel, I was able to aim them to -55, but still they go down during parts of the day. I have a second antenna hung on the 200ft end, at about 185', connected to a second R5H set up for H-Pol which I am going to light up as soon as I get the other end mounted H-Pol. Any other suggestions for getting this stable? I also notice some strangeness when doing bandwidth tests. I can get a steady 8mbps downstream from the 200ft end to the 50' end, but from the 50' end to the 200ft end, the transfer starts at about 6mbps, then slowly drops down to 0, and the client radio (the 50' end) drops. My assumption is multipath reflections off of the water at the lower end, but I cannot be sure. The water is tidal, with as much as a 3' change from low to high, and is connected to the ocean, so there can be considerable chop and wave action on the surface. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Time Running Out for Trade Show Survey
I'd like to see a real good MPLS intro training session. (although not easy to do in an hour). That might be a good session to be demonstrated on a Mikrotik, considering it is a unique feature Mikrotik is offering. Not that I'm generally a fan to push MT or vendor specific content. There are many venues to get quality MT content for example, I'd rather WISPA push content that WISPs cant get anywhere else to push a stronger call to action to come. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time Running Out for Trade Show Survey I took the survey, however it did not allow me to add in other comments. So: The biggest problem I have with most of these Trade shows is that its a bunch of sales/marketing guys who have no actual idea how the product works and cannot answer in depth technical questions. I can get all of the sales and marketing information that they present on the website or from talking to my usual vendors. What I want is a Product Engineering Show where engineers come and demonstrate their products and I can see actual comparisons of performance, ask detailed questions, etc. For example: I want to have talks from engineers who can answer questions. I want to have talks by real operators on how they implement OSPF to redistribute BGP across their networks. I want to hear talks from people that combine Motorola Canopy, Ubiquiti, Ligowave, Mikrotik, and Netsys to create innovative solutions for providing data coverage. All should be able to show examples. Just my 2 cents... - Matt Forbes Mercy wrote: REMINDER TO PROVIDE INPUT WISPA is researching the possibility of putting on a Trade Show this spring. We put up a survey last week for you to answer basic questions as to what you would like to see in this show. As of Tuesday we had about 40 responses, far below the 300+ members and many more non-members who subscribe to this list. We are leaving the survey up until Friday evening so members have seven days to fill out this brief survey. If you have not filled out the survey please go to: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wsWAhIYE3XfDaKLojwMeNQ_3d_3d Also a list serve has been set up specifically for the organization of the trade show, you can subscribe to this list by going to: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wispashow http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wispashow One more reminder on Friday then your chance for helping us plan this is done. Thanks for your time. Forbes Mercy WISPA - Promotions Committee Chair WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Network Testing Application Development
Dennis, On a side note I'd mention that someone on-list had already created a really neat one, a few years back. It might make sense to look at that first. I got a copy somewhere. I'll go look for it, after I finish my last hour of BTOP protests :-) . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] Network Testing Application Development I am currently in development to make a install-less application that will allow an end user to simply click check net, it will preform several checks including pinging their gateway, your network edge, test dns resolution, list their ip information (for clueless users), as well as give them links to your internal speed test site and contact information.Right now we are looking at a per company cost of between $150 and $200 each. If you would like to be part of the discussions on this product development, please e-mail me offlist at dmburg...@linktechs.net. --- 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.onlinemikrotiktraining.com Author of Learn RouterOS http://routerosbook.com/ ___ WISPA Membership Mailing List --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 Webinar Announced
I was reading bottom up, and probably would not have sent my last message, had I read the later ones first. I appologize as well, I need to learn to let some things roll off, and be less confrontational. Back to work :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 19:45 -0500, Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 01:48 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: How in the world could you distort my comment to mean vendors are evil? I made a comment to PROTECT Vendors' interests. Here is exactly what I responded to: By way of apology to the list let me say this: The message I sent to the list regarding the question of recording and archiving the vendor sessions that Forbes set up did not read with the tone that I intended. It was pointed out to me that it sounded contentious (bickering was the actual word used). It was not intended that way at all. I wanted to make a public apology for those that read my message and took it in that way. In my message, I simply wanted to clarify my thoughts on recording the sessions and apologize to Tom for the overly strong way words I used to describe HIS message. Either way, I apologize that my message carried a tone that I did not intend. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 Webinar Announced
Tim, Yes, your 1,2,3 approach w/ Advanced Disclosure will likely address the issue just fine. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced In previous life I was a product manager for Cisco and two smaller networking vendors. I presented to 100s of groups under various scenarios - everything from a user group with 10 people in Grinnell Iowa, to 2,000 people at Networkers, to private briefings at Cisco's HQ. From the vendor perspective, WISPA is asking the vendor to make a public presentation to a user group about their company, products and technology. If I am the vendor, I make the following assumptions: 1. Everything I say is public and no one is under NDA which means I will not disclose confidential or proprietary information. 2. The event will be recorded either by the user group or someone attending the webinar at their desk. 3. My competitors will be listening to the event most likely using an alias to attend event. 4. The audience might include people that use our products and are fans of the company. The audience might include people that don't like the products and the company. The audience will include people that don't know anything about the company. 5. There will be people in the audience from smaller organizations that don't have direct contact with the company and this is a great opportunity to hear from them directly. Vendors love to hear from directly from people that actually run a network every day rather than having it filtered through sales force and the channel. So, WISPA should: 1. Let the vendor know well in advance that the webinar will be recorded and posted on the WISPA website with member only access. 2. At the beginning of the webinar, the host needs to remind everyone that the webinar is being recorded. The reminder needs to be recorded. 3. After the event, post the recording as is. No editing, no vendor review, just post it. The vendor gave their consent when after being notified that the event was being recorded, they agreed to do the event. Tim -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording should really be implied. There is absolutely nothing implied. It takes like 2 seconds to ASK the vendor the question, and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be asked. So why not just Ask the question? You do one of two things... 1) Before Webinar state, Be aware that this Webinar will be archived for full membership's future viewing or 2) After Webinar ask, How did you think it went? We'd like to archive the webinar so other members can benefit from viewing it, Is taht OK? Then no one gets sued. Then no one complains after the fact. Then nobody gets discruntled. And the Vendor now actually knows about it, and may actually consider it an additional VALUE-ADD Free marketing opportuntiy that WISPA is giving them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording should really be implied. WISPA has all the right in the world to archieve their media and if they are hosting the webinar for the benefit of their members. Now if WISPA wanted to sell the webinar to someone outside the WISPA membership that may require a release but not for membership distribution. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:17:55 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced I know a lot of people feel that way, but it's bull. If it's that important, don't divulge it to anyone in the first place, which defeats the purpose of the webinar or any presentation to your clients of any kind. Once it's released, your technology is just as good as someone else's anyway. What's to prevent your competitor that you're afraid of from directly attending the webinar? It kinda goes along with the privileged email thread. Trust me, there is very little if anything any vendor or WISP does that's secret or special. Intel, IBM, AMD, etc... I'll buy it. None of these guys. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced
Butch, This has never been an issue for me. Nobody has ever asked. I know, without question, that WISPCON, ISPCON, MUM, IT Expo and COMDEX do not require this Well, I can tell you for ISPCON it was standard proceedure, and the release document was in the speaker package online that was supposed to be signed. I actually remember one case, when I was on the advisory committee, where Tim Sanders was unwilling to sign, because all his presentations were copywrited, and he was given permission not to have to share his slides. Yeah, so what? You mean to say that if you just tell them we aren't recording, they will reveal something that they would not do if a session were being recorded? How can you assure them that their competitors would not be in attendance at the LIVE seminar? Oh, wait, you can't. Maybe they will be no more likely to reveal corporate secrets whether recorded or not. Wait, that last sentence is EXACTLY what I said the first time. Maybe this time you will read the rest of the message. Most professional that put on Webinars require that the attendees identify themselves to register, so Vendors do know who is in the audience. (Good examples are Alvarion Webinars). 1. IF this is a session being promoted by WISPA for it's membership, then any vendor asked to present should be TOLD that we WILL be recording and providing the session for current and FUTURE members. 2. IF any vendor cannot live with reality number 1, then they should not be allowed to participate in these sessions. I guess the difference between you and me is that I dont just tell them the way its going to be. I generally work with my partners to ask and discuss how we can make the event better to meet the needs of both parties. If we make it to much of a hassle, they'll just do their own Webinars their own way. Anyway, this is an open list that includes vendors. I haven't heard any vendors chime in with objections, so maybe they are fine with Archiving. But again, I never said archiving wasn't a good idea, just initially the approach was flawed. There is a more clear approach now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 01:48 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: How in the world could you distort my comment to mean vendors are evil? I made a comment to PROTECT Vendors' interests. Here is exactly what I responded to: On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 16:26 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: If a vendor knows the webinar is public archived, they may hold back important information to protect their strategic interests. The idea that a vendor will hold back important information is just silly. My comment may have been overly strong, and, if so, I apologize if you feel I distorted your statement. Either way, your later comments did not make me (as a vendor) feel like you were attacking (where this one, along with MANY of your posts) did/do. It is common practice for radio manufacturers to keep the details of their products confidential from other competitors in the market space. Yeah, so what? You mean to say that if you just tell them we aren't recording, they will reveal something that they would not do if a session were being recorded? How can you assure them that their competitors would not be in attendance at the LIVE seminar? Oh, wait, you can't. Maybe they will be no more likely to reveal corporate secrets whether recorded or not. Wait, that last sentence is EXACTLY what I said the first time. Maybe this time you will read the rest of the message. Atleast 50% of the manufacturers I have delt with over the years have asked for NDAs before sending me a manual, detailed feature set, or price sheet. Not sure who you've dealt with, but MOST of the vendors (in particular, UBNT, who we are talking about for the first session) posts this information on their website. It is ONLY RESPECTFUL to ask the vendors presenting whether they DO or DO NOT want their QA / presentations archived. 1. IF this is a session being promoted by WISPA for it's membership, then any vendor asked to present should be TOLD that we WILL be recording and providing the session for current and FUTURE members. 2. IF any vendor cannot live with reality number 1, then they should not be allowed to participate in these sessions. This is really a simple formula to follow. That is, after all, the whole purpose for WISPA promoting these events. These presentations are QA where the vendors are likely to get blind-sided by questions that they might not be prepared to answer optimally. QA is great for the WISP attendees, but the vendor may not want their non-optimal unprepaired answers to be the ones Posted to the wide world of Membership
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced
Although I think that would be a good idea, before such is done, make sure the vendor authorizes it to occur. Depending on the outcome of the meeting, they may or may not want it as public record. And as teh vendor member they should ahve the right to determine if their webinar can go on the archive or not. Otherwise we'd need the vendor to sign a relase form in advance, as a condition of the webinar. But I dont recomend that. If a vendor knows the webinar is public archived, they may hold back important information to protect their strategic interests. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced Can I make a recommendation that someone record it and put it in a members only area for review by new members. Great idea getting the manufacturers to present. -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:54:57 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced This is to WISPA Members, if you're not a member you have time to join! LEAVE YOUR CALENDAR OPEN FOR NOVEMBER 4th at 2PM Eastern, 11AM Pacific and all time zones in between. WISPA Promotions announce the first ever Webinar. This event is our outreach for members only, a personal visit from a product manufacturer relevant to our industry. We are hoping to make this a regular event with different member manufacturers in our industry. It is a pure question/answer session. Several top administrators and highly-placed technical staff from a manufacturer will be available to answer questions about any topic from specifications to distribution/inventory control or future releases. The first session will be with Ubiquity, the fast growing manufacturer of many popular radios. This idea came from a long thread of member emails that essentially were 'guessing' about what these radios could or could not do. We consider these answers 'from the horse's mouth', and a rare chance to talk to someone knowledgeable. Again this is a session for paid members only as a service of WISPA as we add value to your membership. The personnel attending from Ubiquity are: Mike Ford - Technical Support and Applications Manager Ben Moore - VP Bus. Dev. We invite other manufacturers to email our Promotions Committee so we may make this exclusive feature available on an ongoing basis. Simply email for...@wispa.org and we can put together a schedule for these sessions. These are not sales presentations and video content is at the option of the manufacturer. The session will run 30-45 minutes for this first one. As it is our trial edition many of the rules and procedures for future sessions will be based on how this session runs. The exact details of how to access, and the moderated rules for this forum will be released Monday, November 2nd. This Webinar is for you to learn more about the Vendors and their equipment, we hope you attend and thank you for being a member of WISPA! Forbes Mercy WISPA Promotions Committee Chair WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 Webinar Announced
Butch, How in the world could you distort my comment to mean vendors are evil? I made a comment to PROTECT Vendors' interests. It is common practice for radio manufacturers to keep the details of their products confidential from other competitors in the market space. They put lots of time and money in RD to come up with unique features, which will stay unique if not immediately advertised to their competitors' RD departments. Atleast 50% of the manufacturers I have delt with over the years have asked for NDAs before sending me a manual, detailed feature set, or price sheet. It is ONLY RESPECTFUL to ask the vendors presenting whether they DO or DO NOT want their QA / presentations archived. These presentations are QA where the vendors are likely to get blind-sided by questions that they might not be prepared to answer optimally. QA is great for the WISP attendees, but the vendor may not want their non-optimal unprepaired answers to be the ones Posted to the wide world of Membership to permanently judge them by. As a matter of fact, every conference that I have ever spoken at, had a proceedure for getting a paper signed that the presentation would or wouldn't be able to be archived for future read. Every answering machine that records calls must disclose it in advance it is being recorded. You simply dont record people, and archive it for the general viewing over time, even if its for membership, without first asking the people you are recording, if you have their permission to record and archive it. I didn't say archiving was a BAD idea? I didn't say Vendors wouldn't want it done. I said we shouldn't assume they do and archive it without permission or release. Not only for legal reasons but for professional courtesy. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 16:26 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: If a vendor knows the webinar is public archived, they may hold back important information to protect their strategic interests. Because vendors are all evil? Why would you think this is the case? NOBODY (vendor or otherwise) would release information to the public any differently whether there was to be an archive or not. I believe that keeping an archive (at least for 30 days or so) is a good idea. It won't be public, as the archive will be in the member's wiki. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 Webinar Announced
I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording should really be implied. There is absolutely nothing implied. It takes like 2 seconds to ASK the vendor the question, and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be asked. So why not just Ask the question? You do one of two things... 1) Before Webinar state, Be aware that this Webinar will be archived for full membership's future viewing or 2) After Webinar ask, How did you think it went? We'd like to archive the webinar so other members can benefit from viewing it, Is taht OK? Then no one gets sued. Then no one complains after the fact. Then nobody gets discruntled. And the Vendor now actually knows about it, and may actually consider it an additional VALUE-ADD Free marketing opportuntiy that WISPA is giving them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording should really be implied. WISPA has all the right in the world to archieve their media and if they are hosting the webinar for the benefit of their members. Now if WISPA wanted to sell the webinar to someone outside the WISPA membership that may require a release but not for membership distribution. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:17:55 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced I know a lot of people feel that way, but it's bull. If it's that important, don't divulge it to anyone in the first place, which defeats the purpose of the webinar or any presentation to your clients of any kind. Once it's released, your technology is just as good as someone else's anyway. What's to prevent your competitor that you're afraid of from directly attending the webinar? It kinda goes along with the privileged email thread. Trust me, there is very little if anything any vendor or WISP does that's secret or special. Intel, IBM, AMD, etc... I'll buy it. None of these guys. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:26 PM To: lakel...@gbcx.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced Although I think that would be a good idea, before such is done, make sure the vendor authorizes it to occur. Depending on the outcome of the meeting, they may or may not want it as public record. And as teh vendor member they should ahve the right to determine if their webinar can go on the archive or not. Otherwise we'd need the vendor to sign a relase form in advance, as a condition of the webinar. But I dont recomend that. If a vendor knows the webinar is public archived, they may hold back important information to protect their strategic interests. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced Can I make a recommendation that someone record it and put it in a members only area for review by new members. Great idea getting the manufacturers to present. -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:54:57 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced This is to WISPA Members, if you're not a member you have time to join! LEAVE YOUR CALENDAR OPEN FOR NOVEMBER 4th at 2PM Eastern, 11AM Pacific and all time zones in between. WISPA Promotions announce the first ever Webinar. This event is our outreach for members only, a personal visit from a product manufacturer relevant to our industry. We are hoping to make this a regular event with different member manufacturers in our industry. It is a pure question/answer session. Several top administrators and highly-placed technical staff from a manufacturer will be available to answer questions about any topic from specifications to distribution/inventory control or future releases. The first session will be with Ubiquity, the fast growing manufacturer of many popular radios. This idea came from a long thread of member emails that essentially were 'guessing' about what these radios could or could not do. We consider these answers 'from the horse's mouth', and a rare chance to talk to someone knowledgeable. Again this is a session for paid members only as a service
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
HE even has $1250 GEs Wow, is that transport or transit? Yeah, 2 months ago, we were going to get an Abovenet transport to Hurricain transit because Hurricane's market low pricing, but then Equinix started giving us a hard time on colo, trying to charge us more for the colo than both the transport and transit links combined, so we pulled the plug on the order. Hurricaine had the $2 /mb on GIg-E as long as also do IPv6 w/ IPv4. But where HE did better is they also gave good pricing on the low capacity commits. That makes it cost effective to give HE a try, before going all out, provided you're in a colo they are at. We also found a couple providers that had some really cool programs like you commit to a monthly dollar figure, but could accept the bandwdith from any Equinix facility or distributed between several of them, and move the capacity on the fly to either location. It was great option for someone wanting to expand nationwide, but not knowing where sales will develop first more. But it also allowed Gig-E pricing without having to pay for GIg-E in multiple locations. Its to bad its at Equinix though, cause a lot of teh value proposition got killed once transport added to it to get out to remote cell site, or Equinix's clueless overcharging of antenna roof space. Again its really sad when someone tried to charge more for an antenna position than a GIg-E fiber link. 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, October 22, 2009 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Not to you, but to the thread: Cogent isn't even the low cost leader anymore. PCCW is often cheaper as is HE. HE even has $1250 GEs and $400 FEs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:17 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Brad, Once again I disagree. Cogent represents themselves as low cost, but they have never represented themselves as low quality. Second, Cogent is most ideal as the FIRST PRIMARY provider, because Cogent is higher performing, and faster speed connections are more affordable. I agree, a backup secondary provider is needed to help when there are short outages. The backup providers dont need to be as high a capacity, or as quality, as they are seldom used exempt in the rare emergencies. Third, What determines how inexpensive a Transit provider is has nothing to do with Quality, it has to do with who has more settlement free peers. Cogent costs less, because Cogent has to pay fewer other ISPs for capacity. This DOES NOT mean they use low quality public peering, it means that they have more quality private peering negotiated at better terms. Bottom line is any carrier can break That, I agree with. Which is why its important to have two upstreams. But, that is not a reason to not buy Cogent first. By buying Cogent first it allows a provider to become more profitable sooner, and therefore able to afford sooner multiple upstreams. Its also depends on what the downstream offers in its value proposition. With Cogent, I offer my custoemrs Gig-E when others can offer 100mb. With Cogent, I can offer my customers half the price, if not 1/3rd the price that my tier2 competitiors can offer. With Cogent, I offer excellent performance, better than most, most of the time, and if they get an outage so what. Is it really better to have less good performance all the time, to gain .009 better uptime? That depends on the target client base of the WISP. You also got another thing right... I am largely dependant on Cogent, and I hate that. But its relevent to ask why I'm dependant? When I first started out, it was because of price, but not anymore. I'm dependant on Cogent because its really hard to find a Tier1 Carrier that can offer anywhere near as equivellent consistent performance and tech support. My customers really noticed, everytime I tried someone else, so someone else never lastest. Note that I did not say uptime, I said performance. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams While I agree no solution can be considered equal in any given location, there are trends or a general barometer to help place one carrier over another. This is the reality that typically puts Cogent towards the back of the bus in most people's minds. The biggest proponents of Cogent are those that are largely dependent on Cogent due
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
Useful site. I found it particular intersting that Level3 was high up on all teh stats. These are all good metric for evaluating provider's peering relevence and size. What these sites dont help with is tell you the capacity or throughput accross the routes. A company could have 1000 more peers than someone else, but if they were all 100 mbps peers, it might not deliver near as much performance if all the peers were 10GB. What would be interesting would be to have stats on average capacity per peer connection. 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, October 22, 2009 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Many carriers swap routes around. http://www.fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.fixedorbit.com/AS/2/AS2828.htm According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network XO has paid peering with Sprint and L3, but some information on that page isn't exactly current with things I've heard elsewhere. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Isn't XO a Level3 reseller? 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 Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly proportional to the location where they have more peering. In the DC and NY markets, Cogent has excellent performance and peering, and has shown to outperform EVERY provider we have tried, period. (And yes, some of the carriers we tried were Level3, XO, and Abovenet.) I recognize that Cogent's performance may not be as good for ALL markets where they potentially could have a weaker presence. But saying Cogent is only worthy of the 3rd or 4th transit connection is simply untrue. Cogent's weak point now is internal processes and communication. They've lost touch with the value of having personal Account Reps, and render the reps powerless to manage the accounts, in favor of the customer relationship managed by the clueless billing/collections department. Its a shame. You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers. But their tech support has been the best by far in the industry, and oversubscription has never been a problem from what I see. In picking a Transit provider its really a decision about where your traffic typically flows, and where you need good performance to. NOT anyone has best performance everywhere. For example, Hurricane has excellent performance AND they are inexpensive. They have a really good peering presensence in CA. I'm not confident that they have nearly as good a presence on the East coast though, but those that have used them on teh east coast that I know have been happy. We were considering using them. Abovenet has great Gig-E Transport. But their transit is expensive, and its because its more expensive for them to provide it, because they are not as well positioned to do it cost effectively, not because its necessarilly better. Level3 as well, has many strength. They have a lot of web host clients. It can really help performance to reach certain sites. Level3 also tends to blocks smaller BGP block announcements, more so than someone like Cogent. Level3 is good for a secondaryu because they usually have diverse routes. Some providers have good performance to France, Amsterdam, India, others dont. Savvis tends to have real peering to NY finacnial markets. I often see Blended bandwdith combining Global Cross and Level3, not sure why these two are chosen as a pair. Maybe its simply becaue they tend to be colocated at the same carrier hotels? But selecting a transit provider is not as simple as saying one is better. My personaly opinion is, find the two lowest cost providers, and then you can afford to buy more bandwidth, and have two options to route customers. You also need to consider the path to where you take it. For example, Cogent remote tenant buildings likely have routers with less ram that cant handle full BGP tables, so they require creating session to two seperate BGP servers (with the second one having full routes.). But of you connect to them inb a major colo center that doesn;t exist. Similar things exist with other providers depending on where you pick up the circuit. What I like about Abovenet, is they'll
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
Marco, If you are considering Level3, you may also want to get a price quote from WBSConnect, who is a Level3 reseller. They can sometimes be very competitive, and give you an idea if you are paying what you should. I'd be interested in learning what Abovenet quotes you for Gig-E Transit. Also, To share what we did last, we didn't pick a pri and sec, we picked two primary's, and the other PRimary acted as a backup to the other PRimary. Thdn we routed shortest path to each NOC. That however did take some IP space coordination and planning. But the benefit of that was it allowed us to purchase half the amount of bandwdith and gain the same performance. Once each connection is on a Gig-E port, its easy to upgrade either side as demand needed. Then the rare times there are outages, it was OK, if the capacity was a bit over subscribed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams AboveNET will layout the exact path your fiber feed will be for you. Just make sure you're secondary path is completely diverse from whatever you choose as your primary. My suggestion would be to go with AboveNET or Level3 as your primary and use Cogent as your secondary. We haven't had any billing issues with any of our upstream providers that wasn't easily straightened out. Maybe we've just been lucky or maybe we just review our agreements more closely and haven't allowed for any chance of discrepancies. As they say...YMMV! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marco Coelho Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Our situation is thus: We are leasing a 45 Mile1 Gig fiber link from Greenville TX to 2323 Bryan ST. in Dallas (carrier hotel). My primary need is quality bandwidth. This will become my preferred route to the world. Secondary requirement is a company I won't have to spend 1 year working to get the billing correct. I am installing a 1 Gig (800M/800M) licensed PTP link from my NOC to another lit building in Richardson TX for path diversity. The choice of carriers here will be more limited. With Abovenet being one of the primary choices. I do not want this connection to go to the same carrier as the other connection. It's really kind of funny I was just a few years ago (12) when bonded 6 T's together and thought I had all the bandwidth in the world! Now I'll have and additional 2G at my NOC for less than I was paying for the 6 Ts. Marco WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Partnership Agreements
The first thing is to establish WHY a partnership agreement is neccessary, apposed to other options. I have generally find that the new prospective partner under values what the primary owner had already given to build its business, and often new prospective partners under-estimate what they'll get in return for being a partner. New Prospective Partners, after first year, often want out, and makes life really difficult for the primary owner. Bottom line, anyone that wants to be a partner, should earn their right to become a partner, and commit to get their feet wet in the business for a while, before having their partnerships finalized and granted. If you have a partner, and finaicial problems develop you will ahv major issue. If you ever go to Sell your company, your hands may be heavilly tied. What type of company are you? I'd recommend an S-corp or LLC over doing a legal basic partnership. It will give you more control on what rights the partner has. IS this prospective partner bringing in cash? You may want to consider doing a note instead of a legal partnership. In the terms of a NOTE, you can specifiy many things on mechanisms to pay back that note, or secure it. For example, in the note, you could promise 5% of the company stock, to be defined or allocated at some pre-defined time, event, or condition. Its not necessary to actullay define a fixed number of shares. But doing something like that avoids the hassle of recreateing a legal business structure that might limit your control. Doing it through a NOTE, just makes sure the propspective individual is compensated, without having to predict the futures. Its just like being a partner. Partnerships can work, but you give something up, that is the most valuable. It can be hard for two people to resolve a difference of opinion. To Partner, there should be a very clear justification of what the partner is bringing in of necessary value. If you need help, then its appropriate to look for it. Thats the whole underlying principle of Corporations. A team will be more effective than an individual. The challenging part is to find the best method to pull togeather the team. The legal partnership method can be risky. Your Email inferred he may be a very good candidate for a partner. I dont doubt that for a second. Step 1 is to sit down with him, and really define what you ahve put in todate, what he's willing to put in, and asses values to those things. IF you can agree to the value of those things, then its easy to establish a formula of fair compensation for each. But aftter defining those details, then you re-visit the best corporate structure to facilitate the desired partnership. SCorps only allow personal investors partners (not companies), but can be a good way to partner if teh partner has a second income generating business. They often can use losses on their personal returns to offset taxes, which can incourage the lending money to the company, and still allow some financial benefit when money is not rolling in profit. It should also be noted that private investors are usually looking at 3% interest profit if they put their money in the open market right now. Dont undersell the value of your company, as ir would likely be a better money maker to yield a return for this partner. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner up with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load. I'm leery, however of getting screwed. (My father was in business for years with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to the point they were out of business) A requirement of a partner, for me, would be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the extra weight of the new guy. The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with only dollar signs in their eyes. Not a good fit for me, I'm not about cash in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about money all the time scares the hell out of me. I now have a guy who looks good. Has the assets and interest. Has 3 small towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office, construction equipment, trailers, etc. He understands there won't be any money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're doing. He says that's fine. He also has the billing and general paperwork experience and background. (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and paperwork) Looks good so far. The construction equipment would be a help, no more begging things from farmers and making deals to get a hole dug. His current gig
Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
If you are a Ccorp, easy to convert to Scorp, if it determines appropriate. But yes, definately pre-define the exit strategy, considering wether it would be you or him exiting, and both. The horror stories in Partnership occur most at exit time. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements We're a full C corporation. I never thought about Exit strategy but I have thought about the death of one of the partners, hopefully from natural causes and how their share should be handled. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Israel Lopez-LISTS Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements My rules are: Make it performance based Make sure what he is bringing to the table is equitable to the proposed share of the company Try to talk out exit strategy, where you are taking it, how you want to go and see if that matches up to what your new partner wants to do. This all depends on the business structure you have setup (which you havent mentioned) but I assume it is an LLC or Corporation for your state, make sure it is in writing. Watch this video if you want: http://vimeo.com/6950199 Good luck. -Israel Robert West wrote: I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner up with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load. I'm leery, however of getting screwed. (My father was in business for years with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to the point they were out of business) A requirement of a partner, for me, would be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the extra weight of the new guy. The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with only dollar signs in their eyes. Not a good fit for me, I'm not about cash in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about money all the time scares the hell out of me. I now have a guy who looks good. Has the assets and interest. Has 3 small towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office, construction equipment, trailers, etc. He understands there won't be any money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're doing. He says that's fine. He also has the billing and general paperwork experience and background. (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and paperwork) Looks good so far. The construction equipment would be a help, no more begging things from farmers and making deals to get a hole dug. His current gig is as an electrical engineer, travels around the world as a contractor overseeing the repair and programming of robotics as well as the installation of the equipment. He says he's tired of being gone all the time and wants to stay in one area in a field that will be somewhat related and complicated enough that he won't get bored. Hm.. I've been to his home a few times, even put in a private wireless connection between him and his neighbor a mile away. Seems like a decent guy. Now he wants to sit down and work things out on paper. Any advice on things to cover my ass on? Things some of you wished you had down on paper when you started out? I'm not a partner kinda guy, my business plan is always in my head, I make much of it up as I go along and I jump in and just do things myself so this is new territory.(However, my total lack of organization is due to the previously stated operation of the business plan) I know some will yell to not take on a partner and I'd be one of them, believe me. That's why I've fought them off so long. But with a larger network coming online and eyes for even more expansion, it's looking good to me. (We currently only have a little less than 200 subs but anticipate twice if not 3 times that to come online in 2010) I just don't want to be out in the cold or screwed over due to my ability to trust. I'll never give up more than 50%, won't happen, but there are many ways people can screw others. It all sounds like picking the right person for marriage. (I have a bad track record in that too!!! ) Do ya think maybe him and I should just kinda date for awhile before we make the commitment? What would be considered first base in this kind of thing? Configuring a CPE after a few dates then moving on to a customer installation then if it all goes well, take the plunge and climb a tower together? Weird. Thanks. Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020
Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
What do you mean? Whitespace is like a 6 mhz channel. Put QAM64 on that, and you are pushing like 10 mbps per sector. Whitespace will give you everthing 900Mhz did, except less interference (In hopes), more NLOS coverage, and many cases MANY more channels. Sure whitespace wont be living in the 20mbps to the home world, but still, the benefit is huge. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace? Sprint used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was SLOW. I guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on my radar of concern. Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your not playing the game. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! See the attached Case Study and Press Release. jack Jonathan Schmidt wrote: Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut Network Using 'White Spaces' John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with TDF Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband network in rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV channels. House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who represents rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a Webcast with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how wireless Interent connectivity can change their lives. The government is currently working on a national broadband plan, including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless Internet. Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum in secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help identify available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless Internet providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a potential service area to make it economically viable. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com Sent from my Pizzicato PluckString... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
I'm not sure how Equinix is in other cities, but in Chicago, they are just one tenant among many in the building. Equinix charges a lot for everything. Thats good to know. Here in Ashburn, its not the case, they own all the buildings, and there are several. 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, October 22, 2009 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams I'm not sure how Equinix is in other cities, but in Chicago, they are just one tenant among many in the building. Equinix charges a lot for everything. If you can find another tenant such as TelX or a web host, I'd go there (depending on cross connect charges). It's transit. Usually in the metro areas, transit is cheaper than transport because with transport they have to be able to carry 100% of the traffic to wherever it's going. With transit, they can offload (maybe significant) portions of the traffic to other carriers within the building instead of on their 10GigEs going elsewhere. I'd recommend that anyone in a metro area *investigate* dark fiber thoroughly. I'm too small to buy it on my own, but depending on the market, dark fiber can be cheap and get you to where you need to be. It's not always in the right spots outside of the carrier hotels, but usually that can be solved by short builds or wireless. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:39 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams HE even has $1250 GEs Wow, is that transport or transit? Yeah, 2 months ago, we were going to get an Abovenet transport to Hurricain transit because Hurricane's market low pricing, but then Equinix started giving us a hard time on colo, trying to charge us more for the colo than both the transport and transit links combined, so we pulled the plug on the order. Hurricaine had the $2 /mb on GIg-E as long as also do IPv6 w/ IPv4. But where HE did better is they also gave good pricing on the low capacity commits. That makes it cost effective to give HE a try, before going all out, provided you're in a colo they are at. We also found a couple providers that had some really cool programs like you commit to a monthly dollar figure, but could accept the bandwdith from any Equinix facility or distributed between several of them, and move the capacity on the fly to either location. It was great option for someone wanting to expand nationwide, but not knowing where sales will develop first more. But it also allowed Gig-E pricing without having to pay for GIg-E in multiple locations. Its to bad its at Equinix though, cause a lot of teh value proposition got killed once transport added to it to get out to remote cell site, or Equinix's clueless overcharging of antenna roof space. Again its really sad when someone tried to charge more for an antenna position than a GIg-E fiber link. 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, October 22, 2009 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Not to you, but to the thread: Cogent isn't even the low cost leader anymore. PCCW is often cheaper as is HE. HE even has $1250 GEs and $400 FEs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:17 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Brad, Once again I disagree. Cogent represents themselves as low cost, but they have never represented themselves as low quality. Second, Cogent is most ideal as the FIRST PRIMARY provider, because Cogent is higher performing, and faster speed connections are more affordable. I agree, a backup secondary provider is needed to help when there are short outages. The backup providers dont need to be as high a capacity, or as quality, as they are seldom used exempt in the rare emergencies. Third, What determines how inexpensive a Transit provider is has nothing to do with Quality, it has to do with who has more settlement free peers. Cogent costs less, because Cogent has to pay fewer other ISPs for capacity. This DOES NOT mean they use low quality public peering, it means that they have more quality private peering negotiated at better terms. Bottom line is any carrier can break That, I agree with. Which is why its important to have two upstreams. But, that is not a reason
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly proportional to the location where they have more peering. In the DC and NY markets, Cogent has excellent performance and peering, and has shown to outperform EVERY provider we have tried, period. (And yes, some of the carriers we tried were Level3, XO, and Abovenet.) I recognize that Cogent's performance may not be as good for ALL markets where they potentially could have a weaker presence. But saying Cogent is only worthy of the 3rd or 4th transit connection is simply untrue. Cogent's weak point now is internal processes and communication. They've lost touch with the value of having personal Account Reps, and render the reps powerless to manage the accounts, in favor of the customer relationship managed by the clueless billing/collections department. Its a shame. You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers. But their tech support has been the best by far in the industry, and oversubscription has never been a problem from what I see. In picking a Transit provider its really a decision about where your traffic typically flows, and where you need good performance to. NOT anyone has best performance everywhere. For example, Hurricane has excellent performance AND they are inexpensive. They have a really good peering presensence in CA. I'm not confident that they have nearly as good a presence on the East coast though, but those that have used them on teh east coast that I know have been happy. We were considering using them. Abovenet has great Gig-E Transport. But their transit is expensive, and its because its more expensive for them to provide it, because they are not as well positioned to do it cost effectively, not because its necessarilly better. Level3 as well, has many strength. They have a lot of web host clients. It can really help performance to reach certain sites. Level3 also tends to blocks smaller BGP block announcements, more so than someone like Cogent. Level3 is good for a secondaryu because they usually have diverse routes. Some providers have good performance to France, Amsterdam, India, others dont. Savvis tends to have real peering to NY finacnial markets. I often see Blended bandwdith combining Global Cross and Level3, not sure why these two are chosen as a pair. Maybe its simply becaue they tend to be colocated at the same carrier hotels? But selecting a transit provider is not as simple as saying one is better. My personaly opinion is, find the two lowest cost providers, and then you can afford to buy more bandwidth, and have two options to route customers. You also need to consider the path to where you take it. For example, Cogent remote tenant buildings likely have routers with less ram that cant handle full BGP tables, so they require creating session to two seperate BGP servers (with the second one having full routes.). But of you connect to them inb a major colo center that doesn;t exist. Similar things exist with other providers depending on where you pick up the circuit. What I like about Abovenet, is they'll map out their network for you, so you know exactly what you are buying, so true redunancy can be built into the network design. Cogent is a bit more secrative about the traffic path. XO has had some really good account reps, and I liked that. But for me, they didn't really give me anything exciting as far as price or performance, more than anyone else. It should also be noted that it could make a big difference which local colo you pick the circuit up in also. So when you are evaluating a provider you are also evaluating the venue where the circuit is in. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com To: bcl...@spectraaccess.com; 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Cogent can be ok, but they are not equal to AboveNET, XO, ATT, Level3 etc... We have multiple upstream GigE feeds and Cogent is one of them. It took us months to get Cogent to resolve a flapping switch or router within their network. After a couple dozen screenshots and trace routes from various looking glass sites they finally conceded. Granted the outages were only between 5 and 60 seconds long when they occurred and rarely were long enough to break BGP sessions, but they were hell on VoIP! It took us less than a day to find the specific Cogent IP or device where the problem was occurring, but months before Cogent acted on the information we provided them. Cogent Support honestly wasn't that bad, but said their hands were tied until management further up the chain completed their investigation. During that time we had to route voice traffic around Cogent as best we could. Cogent is great as a cheap
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
Brad, Once again I disagree. Cogent represents themselves as low cost, but they have never represented themselves as low quality. Second, Cogent is most ideal as the FIRST PRIMARY provider, because Cogent is higher performing, and faster speed connections are more affordable. I agree, a backup secondary provider is needed to help when there are short outages. The backup providers dont need to be as high a capacity, or as quality, as they are seldom used exempt in the rare emergencies. Third, What determines how inexpensive a Transit provider is has nothing to do with Quality, it has to do with who has more settlement free peers. Cogent costs less, because Cogent has to pay fewer other ISPs for capacity. This DOES NOT mean they use low quality public peering, it means that they have more quality private peering negotiated at better terms. Bottom line is any carrier can break That, I agree with. Which is why its important to have two upstreams. But, that is not a reason to not buy Cogent first. By buying Cogent first it allows a provider to become more profitable sooner, and therefore able to afford sooner multiple upstreams. Its also depends on what the downstream offers in its value proposition. With Cogent, I offer my custoemrs Gig-E when others can offer 100mb. With Cogent, I can offer my customers half the price, if not 1/3rd the price that my tier2 competitiors can offer. With Cogent, I offer excellent performance, better than most, most of the time, and if they get an outage so what. Is it really better to have less good performance all the time, to gain .009 better uptime? That depends on the target client base of the WISP. You also got another thing right... I am largely dependant on Cogent, and I hate that. But its relevent to ask why I'm dependant? When I first started out, it was because of price, but not anymore. I'm dependant on Cogent because its really hard to find a Tier1 Carrier that can offer anywhere near as equivellent consistent performance and tech support. My customers really noticed, everytime I tried someone else, so someone else never lastest. Note that I did not say uptime, I said performance. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams While I agree no solution can be considered equal in any given location, there are trends or a general barometer to help place one carrier over another. This is the reality that typically puts Cogent towards the back of the bus in most people's minds. The biggest proponents of Cogent are those that are largely dependent on Cogent due to any number of reasons. Budget constraints, lack of alternate higher quality peer availability etc, etc. Cogent makes no excuse promoting themselves as the low end, budget driven bottom dollar provider. They are good for what they offer, but again not what a network administrator looking for high availability is going to pick as a first choice. You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers. This is exactly my point (being made by Tom, a Cogent customer!) why Cogent should not be depended on as a sole or primary Internet feed. If Cogent's all you got then you're SOL! Bottom line is any carrier can break. If you can only have one then find one that breaks the least. If you can have more than one, Cogent is a good low cost second or third to have in a pinch for relatively little cost. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly proportional to the location where they have more peering. In the DC and NY markets, Cogent has excellent performance and peering, and has shown to outperform EVERY provider we have tried, period. (And yes, some of the carriers we tried were Level3, XO, and Abovenet.) I recognize that Cogent's performance may not be as good for ALL markets where they potentially could have a weaker presence. But saying Cogent is only worthy of the 3rd or 4th transit connection is simply untrue. Cogent's weak point now is internal processes and communication. They've lost touch with the value of having personal Account Reps, and render the reps powerless to manage the accounts, in favor of the customer relationship managed by the clueless billing/collections department. Its a shame. You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers. But their tech support has been the best
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
Nathan, Like your perspective. I'll say the reason that I admit that I have had some uptime issues is that. I once had an ATT- T1, that never had a single outage or degregation in the 4 years that we had it. NOT one. It was special to have that experience, and see something so reliable over time, that simply could be relied on. Some people have that high of a standard. For example, I bet the NY Stock Exchange would pay about anything to guarantee 4 years of ZERO downtime. But, in my opinon we no longer live in that age. Networks are getting complicated. We are in the age of SHARED infrastructure. All it takes is a single config mistake for a new sub, and a metro network can accidentally be taken down. Short outages now and then are tolerable and to be expected on any carriers network, and Carriers expect tier2/3 ISPs to have backup transits. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Nathan Stooke nstooke...@wisperisp.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Hello, I know when we where shopping for bandwidth all of the other providers said Cogent was bad yet almost all of Cogent customers said they were great!! You have to take into account the bias of the person that started the rumor. We have had cogent for almost 3 years. 2 times have we gone down. First, for 30 min, was the part failing and the second, 3 hours, was replacing the part after it failed a second time. Their support is great and they know their stuff. No matter who you chose to go with 2 providers is better than 1. However, we still only have one for cost and the given track record of Cogent. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams As we can all see, This is very dependent on market. Bret here has had a great time with cogent, where others are quick to say its a lesser provider. Arguing which carrier has better uptime is a waste of time. Long story short, Pick what is the best in that market. You might even get away with looking up some of the big company's in your city, and if they peer with someone you might also want to peer with (like cogent). Give them a call and see if you can get a tech, see what they have to say about $CARRIER in your area. They might tell you to jump in a lake, but you might get someone cool who is willing to talk. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Brad Belton wrote: While I agree no solution can be considered equal in any given location, there are trends or a general barometer to help place one carrier over another. Such as? This is exactly my point (being made by Tom, a Cogent customer!) why Cogent should not be depended on as a sole or primary Internet feed. If Cogent's all you got then you're SOL! Baloney, we've used them as one of our primary's for well over a year without hiccup. Our so other better providers have given us more frustration. Bottom line is any carrier can break. If you can only have one then find one that breaks the least. If you can have more than one, Cogent is a good low cost second or third to have in a pinch for relatively little cost. Where are you getting your data from? Curious as to why you feel they are a second or third alternative? Bret WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] choice of upstreams
Isn't XO a Level3 reseller? I dont know, they could be in some markets. But what I can tell you is that XO does own their own national fiber backbone that covers some US markets. But that brings up a new topic about why some can be more cost competitive in certain areas. It really boils down to what assets they have strong in that market. I like to use a specific real world example of mine. I'll leave out the exact locations, to respect vendor. The path is from point A (NOC) to Point B (Neutral Carrier Hotel.) Above.net owns the fiber to the PointA building. Cogent buy's Above.net's dark fiber to deliver our transit service. Prices below are per month. Above.net DarkFiber- $8k per month Above.net Gig-E transport from PointA to PointB- $2k Above.net 200mbps Transit at PointB -$2k Above.net 200mbps Transit delivered to PointA - $4k Cogent Gig-E transit at PointA- $4k Cogent 200mbps transit at PointA- $1600 Cogent Gig-E transport from Point A to Point B- $6k Cogent 100mbps PTP PointA to B- $1k XO transit 100mbps PointA - $3000k (because they have to pay more for transport to that site) Those above prices make absolutely no sense. Why is it? The most expensive service offers the less (dark fiber). Itsclear why, when abovenet sees Cogent's selling retail lower than the dark fiber owner, and a desire to prevent that situation from replicating to more competitors. Cogent's fiber costs are very minimal. The biggest cost to both the Tier1 carriers is peering cross connects. They are $300 per Cross connect. EVEN if the peer only passes 10mbps of traffic on average. Cogent does way higher volume in the region, therefore divides that cost of all peering connection by those higher number of connections, and develops a lower cost for peering per subscriber. Therefore Cogent can afford more peers at the site. As they get more peers, their transit cost go down. But Cogent's volume gets large enough that their transit becomes cheap enough, that they can charge me less for it, than selling me the transport without the transit. Its worth it to them, to own my Transit, even if not being compensated for it, because it discourages customers from peering with others. My point here is, the priciing in this example has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with volume at a particular venue or market. Whoever gained more momentum has the potential to offer lower price, quality of the network design never really enters into the equation. Cogents strategy has always been to low ball price to gain more momentum, and control more traffic, to negotiate lower peering costs. My second point is, these costs dont consider Colocation costs. It was determined that Colocation and peering really does not pay off until one is doing over 1GB of traffic, if reason for colo is to save cost by peering. So if doing under a gig, comparing carriers is about the cost comparison at PointA. ISPs get locked into an upstream Tier1 because of their position to remote facilities. If doing over 1GB, well, then its a different game, because all carriers are closer positioned at that Carrier Neutral hotel, and there are different metric for differentiation. But there are so many scenarios today, its near impossbile to predict who will offer better bandwdith, before trying it. Even Resellers now can offer better performance sometimes than the tier1. When a fiber line between NewYork and DC can be had with only a added 1-2ms of latency, its leaves room for games to reduce cost. One game is to peer at Carrier Hotels with low cost Cross Connects, where its $100/mon, and then Transport all the traffic back to a central source where one does it s primary high capacity peers. The performance degregation of the extra hop is often unnoticeable. Again, cost comes back to how much volume can be sold by that reseller from that venue. IF enough Tranffic can be offloaded to peering, only a small percentage of traffic needs to be split between a couple upstream transit providers. My recommendation is to always do a short term contract the first time you try a new provider at a specific venue, then after shown thats it performs well, upgrade to long term contract to reduce cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Isn't XO a Level3 reseller? 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 Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly proportional to the location where they have more peering
Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
by side comparisons to sites they said they accessed most. The challenge with testing is that testing latency is not the only meaning ful data. Whats also relevent to test is the packetloss and throughput end to end to key places. To do that it requires an uninhibited qualified envi ronment to transfer files or run things like Iperf from. Sometimes we do this by taking advantage of other locations that our large customers might have, and we'll remote desktop in, and test away with Jperf. I cant tell you who has the best uptime, Because Cogent is the only one that we have non-stop for many years. But measuring performance is a quick process. Can I measure average performance over a period of time and report it, NO. But my customers can. They switch to us, and they either experience better or worse performance in general perception, and I always ask, and they tell me what they really think. And sometimes our customers switch from us, and then switch back because they missed out high performance. Lastly, if I said Cogent outperforms all other providers, I didn't mean that. What I did mean is that, based on teh providers we tried, Cogent had felt to perform better on average than the other carriers we tried in those envirnments, based on tests we ran at that time. It should also be considered the reason this thread got my attention. I did not start out saying Cogent was the Best. I said Cogent was not second rate. All that really matters is the choices where I hadCogent, I compared to my other choice at that site, and Cogent won for that location. I dont have to prove Cogent is BEst in the World to everyone to prove my original point that Cogent is a high quality provider in many cases. And that I have not been exposed to a compelling reason to justify switching, based on performance. One more lastly, I'd argue that the changes in the Internet eco system changes who has better performance. For example, US bandwidth providers have excellent price/performance because they have signifcant influence in the market. This is because they control a large part of the world's hosting (specifically areas like LA and Ashburn). As different colo centers gain more market share it can change what ISPs have better performance. It really doesn't matter how good a network someone has, if the traffic is forced to take a specific route, that route determined performance. Global Routing is very complicated, and to say one provider has it mastered well beyond others would be rediculous. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams Tom, Can you explain how you tested that Cogent outperformed every other provider? The only way I know to test that is to actually have all those providers, running full BGP routes to your router and seeing where the traffic goes. Is that how you tested? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly proportional to the location where they have more peering. In the DC and NY markets, Cogent has excellent performance and peering, and has shown to outperform EVERY provider we have tried, period. (And yes, some of the carriers we tried were Level3, XO, and Abovenet.) I recognize that Cogent's performance may not be as good for ALL markets where they potentially could have a weaker presence. But saying Cogent is only worthy of the 3rd or 4th transit connection is simply untrue. Cogent's weak point now is internal processes and communication. They've lost touch with the value of having personal Account Reps, and render the reps powerless to manage the accounts, in favor of the customer relationship managed by the clueless billing/collections department. Its a shame. You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers. But their tech support has been the best by far in the industry, and oversubscription has never been a problem from what I see. In picking a Transit provider its really a decision about where your traffic typically flows, and where you need good performance to. NOT anyone has best performance everywhere. For example, Hurricane has excellent performance AND they are inexpensive. They have a really good peering presensence in CA. I'm not confident that they have nearly as good a presence on the East coast though, but those that have used them on teh east coast that I know have been happy. We were considering using them. Abovenet has great Gig-E Transport. But their transit is expensive, and its because its more expensive for them to provide it, because they are not as well positioned to do it cost effectively, not because its necessarilly better. Level3 as well, has many strength
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right
problem with Grant programs that force applicants to be evaluated on both abilty to serve largest population and deliver at lowest costs. I dont want to give access to prime tower assets at a discount, no more than the property owners I pay wont discount it. I need to be selective on how these valuable resources are used.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right If I had a $1 for every propoerty owner that would not allow me to deploy broadband to an inquiring prospect, I'd be a millionaire. Wow Tom, if even remotely true this should be a glaring indicator of something very wrong with your approach. I understand that a pinch of story additive may help make your point when frustrated, but dilute your claim down from 1,000,000 to 10,000, 1,000 or even 100 and I still don't think we've been turned away 100 times in the ten years we've been deploying fixed wireless. Maybe comments you've made like I'll legally force you to allow me, or buy me an alternative are rubbing the property owner's the wrong way? I dunnojust a stab in the dark... Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 6:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right Actually, from that perspective LEGAL right could be a good thing, and better if expanded I want to put an antenna on the roof, and its the only way to get broadband there, and the property manager says no. I now say YOU need to let me because its my legal right to have it. I'll legally force you to allow me, or buy me an alternative. What it really needs to read is Americans have the LEGAL RIGHT to Broadband of CHOICE. Now that would be a good thing for competition.. Or Americans have Legal Right to BRoadband of Choice, without excessive fees charged by third parties at a rate higher than they'd charge other broadband providers for delivering broadband. Could you imaging if Wireless PRoviders could pull Roof easements with the same power as ILECs pull ground easements? If I had a $1 for every propoerty owner that would not allow me to deploy broadband to an inquiring prospect, I'd be a millionaire. Or atleast my sales reps wouldn't always get discouraged and quit. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right Yeah. A legal right. In that case, I ground my son from that damn Maple Story he plays hours on end and he calls children's services because I violated his legal rights... What other things do I have the legal right to that I don't have, I wonder... This is that Entitlement crap again. I'm entitled to fresh water, nutritious and healthy food, safe place to live, 100mb download speed internet, blah, blah, blah. Bunch of babies. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right On Oct 16, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Robert West wrote: I can see somewhere in the near future, after all major technologies converge into devices that run on whatever version of the internet we will have at that time, that this would be a feasible argument however at this moment and probably in the next 10 years the vast majority of us will be able to live and survive perfectly fine with no internet. I don't understand the 1mg limit for the human right. Keep in mind, it's a *legal* right (soon) in Finland, not a human right. People are conflating the French decree with Finland's. Chuck Most information, other than video, can be had at mere dial up speed. How would slower internet speeds be the difference between life or death? My 15 year old. Dad! If I can't see the Whack-a-kitty video on YouTube I'm just gonna die! Okay, that much I DO understand. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Hulsebus Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right FYI From SANS Newsbites Vol. 11 Num. 82 : Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right --Finland Declares 1Mb Broadband Access a Legal Right (October 14 15
Re: [WISPA] Gotta Have
But you're missing the point. Yeah, Its definately not worth it, for those that can use the standard CAT5s effectively. But your math assumes that they can, and not considering the other costs. The ROI is NOT on the time saved comparing successful installs, comparing both types. The ROI is on time saved comparing costs of failed connector installs. What does it cost you if you crimp an end, and get a flaky crimp, and the link not work? How long does it take to figure out which side of the cable had the bad crimp? A 25 cent RJ-45 becomes 50 cents, if you ahve to cut one off and replace it. I can give an example of recently where I had to send a guy back into the city (half day's labor) to fix a packet loss problem caused by defective CAT5 plug terminations. But most of the lost time was in the office troubleshooting the defective packloss link trying to find what was wrong. I can sympathise with eye sight degrating, in my older age :-( . The error rate of successful CAT5 terminations go up, if eye sight is going down. The question to ask is are the installers having to high a failure rate for their first crimpts? If they are, then it may be a good investment. As well, I look at my time as worth $100/hr, and I'd gladly spend the extra $100 for connectors if it meant I was more likely to have sucessful crimpts the first time. I compare... Risking paying 25 cent extra verus risk spending extra $100 in time figuring out where I made the Crimp mistake. For the record, I do not use EZ-Rj45 plugs. But I understand the value of Using the best RJ-45Plugs, and the ROI is there. I personally like to use the the RJ45 Plugs sold by Shireen. Ever since we started using them, terminations have been so much easier and successful. I like the Shireen plugs because they have just the right wire hole diameters for the wire to slide in easy, and I can be certain that they'll slide into the right slots as I tried to align them to. (Its becoming harder for me to tell the wire color once its inside the Jack, due to eyes). And I can be certain they'll crimp securely. I also got tired of the two peice CAT5 jacks, because I always kept loosing the second peices, and ended up having to throw away 20% of them that would be incomplete set. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gotta Have At 200/mo you'd need at least one more customer per month. Don't see this happening by speeding up rj45 connectors. On 10/18/09, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: These do look great... and I would love to buy them for my installers... but $.50 per connector compared to what I pay now would cost me an extra $200 per month just in connectors. :( Travis Microserv Mike wrote: They DO sell shielded. Part PLT-100020-050 Look further down the list at: www.ezrj45.com At 11:13 AM 10/18/2009, you wrote: Yeah, those are awesome. I wish they had shielded connectors as well. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike m...@aweiowa.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] Gotta Have I have learned a lot from this list. I think there is some real talent lurking here. We all have discovered certain things which just make life as a WISP easier. I think it would be beneficial to list participants in general if there was a thread which contained a description and use of something you find invaluable -- hardware, software etc ... you would like to share with the group. I'll start: what: EZRJ-45 connector system where: www.ezrj45.com why: As my eyes get older, and especially in low light situations, I find it very difficult to get all those individual conductors on a CAT5 run in the right order while crimping an end. This is a quite ingenious system. The plugs have holes all the way through. You can verify the color code easily BEFORE crimping and cutting the tags. It takes a special crimp tool which has a pair of blades that cut the tags as it crimps the connector in place. Maybe not a time saver in my case, but definitely a GRIEF saver. I've not miswired an Ethernet plug since I started using this system. Mike WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Simultaneous connections
Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. 1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its not uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't originally capable.. 2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know it is? This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly to the router. In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Its not a question of manufacturer, its a question of model and/or rev of model. Near impossible to have time to test them all, there are so many.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: n...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming
Re: [WISPA] sub 3.7 gig spectrum, comments needed was -- Re: [FCC Committee] FCC Chairman JuliusGenachowski AnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of NationalBroadband Plan
Its about the relevence of the questions not the quantity. 5 relevent broad questions can still allow for 1000's of potential pages of answers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com To: fcccommit...@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:59 AM Subject: [WISPA] sub 3.7 gig spectrum,comments needed was -- Re: [FCC Committee] FCC Chairman JuliusGenachowski AnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of NationalBroadband Plan Hmmm, I thought that there was one with something like 100 questions on it. I must have my issues mixed up. Anyway here's an idea that I think is worth of discussion. I think we should toss out the idea that sensing mechanisms should be allowed so that ANY open frequencies can be used. A couple of easy examples would be 2.5 ghz bands. Those are NOT used in large parts of the country. Today's wifi chips will go up to those frequencies with a firmware change! Wifi already has a listen before talking mechanism. It shouldn't be impossible to add a little bit of intelligence and coordination to the mechanism and allow a nearly free expansion of the 2.4 gig wifi band. The same could be said for 900mhz. Most of what's on either side of it is paging systems. Yet many paging systems are long gone now, especially in rural areas. Why not open up the bands on an as available basis? If we can convince the FCC to allow these types of mechanism we could have a unlicensed underlay that gives us a LOT more spectrum! Thoughts? marlon P.S. I'm tossing this idea back out on the public list for some more discussion relating to this idea. It's a major policy change (for the fcc) so I'd like to hear people's thoughts on asking for it. - Original Message - From: Stephen Coran sco...@rinicoran.com To: fcccommit...@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [FCC Committee] FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski AnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of National Broadband Plan Here is a link to the Public Notice inviting comments: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2100A1.pdf Jack Unger and I are developing an outline of WISPA's Comments based on the Committee members' e-mails and our own thoughts. Deadline for Comments is next Friday. Stephen E. Coran Rini Coran, PC 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.463.4310 - voice 202.669.3288 - cell 202.296.2014 - fax sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail www.rinicoran.com www.telecommunicationslaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting or destroying the e-mail and any attachments without retaining any copies. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matter addressed herein. -Original Message- From: fcccommittee-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:fcccommittee-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 PM To: fcccommit...@wispa.org Subject: Re: [FCC Committee] FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski AnnouncesSenior Staff for Development of National Broadband Plan Hi All, I thought we had an NOI to deal with in regards to the National Broadband plan and sub 3.7 GHz spectrum. This is all I can find in the archives though. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Also, I don't remember much, if any, discussion about WISPA people being at any of these meetings. Did we get people to any of them? On any panels? Or is this the stuff that I couldn't get to and Forbes had to back out of at the last minute? I know that there was something happening in mid sept. Anyway, I'm still looking for a sub 3.7 gig filing, I'd like to toss out some ideas. I'd appreciate any help in finding the FCC NOI or whatever it was. thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com To: WISPA's FCC Committee fcccommit...@wispa.org; legislat...@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:01 PM Subject: [FCC Committee] FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Announces Senior Staff for Development of National Broadband Plan http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292541A1.doc
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right
Very Funny! Thats right, they have the right to go pick up a shovel and run their own fiber to their home :-) Actually, as a consumer, and not an LEC, I wish I had that right. Did they say who's responsibility it was to pay for it and deploy it? Yeah, the consumer should have the right to take out their wallet and pay for it if they need it. A right, is the act of preserving one's ability to continue doing something within their control to do. Preserving rights are imparative where there may otherwise be discrimination. But Forcing someone else to give something is a violation of freedom and rights. So what they are really saying is what? Tax payers have the responsibility to pay for it? Thats the most rediculous thing I ever heard. I agree that all Americans deserve the right to be considered equally when planning how to deploy broadband, regardless to where they live or who they are. But legal right to have it, thats a whole nother level. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:43 PM Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right FYI From SANS Newsbites Vol. 11 Num. 82 : Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right --Finland Declares 1Mb Broadband Access a Legal Right (October 14 15, 2009) The Finnish government has enacted a law making 1Mb broadband Internet access a legal right. The law will take effect in July 2010. The country may eventually guarantee its citizens the right to 100Mb broadband connections. Finland's Transport and Communications Ministry spokesperson Laura Vikkonen was quoted as saying that We think [the Internet is] something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need an Internet connection. Earlier this year, France declared Internet access to be a human right. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/15/finland-makes-broadband-internet-a-legal-right.aspx Dave Hulsebus Portative Technologies, LLC www.portative.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right
Actually, from that perspective LEGAL right could be a good thing, and better if expanded I want to put an antenna on the roof, and its the only way to get broadband there, and the property manager says no. I now say YOU need to let me because its my legal right to have it. I'll legally force you to allow me, or buy me an alternative. What it really needs to read is Americans have the LEGAL RIGHT to Broadband of CHOICE. Now that would be a good thing for competition.. Or Americans have Legal Right to BRoadband of Choice, without excessive fees charged by third parties at a rate higher than they'd charge other broadband providers for delivering broadband. Could you imaging if Wireless PRoviders could pull Roof easements with the same power as ILECs pull ground easements? If I had a $1 for every propoerty owner that would not allow me to deploy broadband to an inquiring prospect, I'd be a millionaire. Or atleast my sales reps wouldn't always get discouraged and quit. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right Yeah. A legal right. In that case, I ground my son from that damn Maple Story he plays hours on end and he calls children's services because I violated his legal rights... What other things do I have the legal right to that I don't have, I wonder... This is that Entitlement crap again. I'm entitled to fresh water, nutritious and healthy food, safe place to live, 100mb download speed internet, blah, blah, blah. Bunch of babies. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right On Oct 16, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Robert West wrote: I can see somewhere in the near future, after all major technologies converge into devices that run on whatever version of the internet we will have at that time, that this would be a feasible argument however at this moment and probably in the next 10 years the vast majority of us will be able to live and survive perfectly fine with no internet. I don't understand the 1mg limit for the human right. Keep in mind, it's a *legal* right (soon) in Finland, not a human right. People are conflating the French decree with Finland's. Chuck Most information, other than video, can be had at mere dial up speed. How would slower internet speeds be the difference between life or death? My 15 year old. Dad! If I can't see the Whack-a-kitty video on YouTube I'm just gonna die! Okay, that much I DO understand. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Hulsebus Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right FYI From SANS Newsbites Vol. 11 Num. 82 : Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right --Finland Declares 1Mb Broadband Access a Legal Right (October 14 15, 2009) The Finnish government has enacted a law making 1Mb broadband Internet access a legal right. The law will take effect in July 2010. The country may eventually guarantee its citizens the right to 100Mb broadband connections. Finland's Transport and Communications Ministry spokesperson Laura Vikkonen was quoted as saying that We think [the Internet is] something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need an Internet connection. Earlier this year, France declared Internet access to be a human right. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/15/finland-m akes-broadband-internet-a-legal-right.aspx Dave Hulsebus Portative Technologies, LLC www.portative.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] Simultaneous connections
Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth his going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc at the same time? Al -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be better. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council
Yeah, convenient theory for them. Or, you could argue, that the current pricing structure cost justifies the large carriers to hord IP space. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council The theory is that routing slots cost money. If you have a /19 and consume a routing slot there is x cost. If you have a /8 and consume a routing slot then the cost is nearly the same. Even if that is the case, it still seems the pricing should be more linear. John -Original Message- From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 08:41 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council Agreed. At first I was told it was that the IP's were getting scare but the IPV6 addresses aren't much cheaper. Lies, all lies. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council I wanted to point out that we have an allie WISP and friend running for ARIN's Advisory board. He is... Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet (also known from Virginia ISP association) Please offer your support and vote, if you have an AS and eligible to vote. Why is IP space so expensive? Why do small ISPs pay the bulk of the cost, and large providers pay next to nothing per IP? Because ARIN's board usually was comprised of large ISPs. Lets get the voice of small ISPs to the ARIN board! If you agree, spread the word. Link to Voting listed below... Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: ARIN Member Services i...@arin.net To: t...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:29 PM Subject: Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council Elections for three (3) seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and five (5) seats on the ARIN Advisory Council will be held online 21-31 October. Details of the election procedures will be presented at the 21 October Public Policy Meeting and will be posted on ARIN's website. The final slate of candidates is: Board of Trustees: * Paul Andersen, EGATE Networks, Inc. * Scott Bradner, Harvard University * Lee Howard, Time Warner Cable * Aaron Hughes, 6connect * Frederick Silny, Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. Advisory Council: * Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet * John Brown, Citylink Fiber Holdings * Rudolf Daniel, Independent * Steve Feldman, CBS Interactive * Wes George, Sprint * Chris Grundemann, TW Telecom Inc / CO ISOC * Stacy Hughes, Guavus, Inc * Kevin Hunt, Hunt Brothers of Louisiana, LLC * Mark Johnson, MCNC * Ed Kern, Cisco * Chris Morrow, Google * Christopher Savage, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP * Heather Schiller, Verizon * Rob Seastrom, Afilias * Scott Weeks, Hawaiian Telcom * Tom Zeller, Indiana University Thomas Leonard and Bill Sandiford did not receive the 172 petition signatures from designated member representatives to be included on the final slate of candidates for the Advisory Council. Additionally note that on 29 September Kevin Kargel withdrew his candidacy from the Advisory Council. Many of the candidates will address the membership at the 21 October Members Meeting in Dearborn. Individuals unable to attend the meeting can watch the live webcast to hear the speeches. These candidate speeches will be posted to the website within 3 days. Brief biographies and a form to voice support for candidates can be found at: https://www.arin.net/app/election/ Designated member representatives (DMR) from ARIN's General Members in good standing will be eligible to vote for three (3) candidates in the Board election and five (5) candidates in the Advisory Council election. ARIN Member Services requires a name and personalized e-mail address be on record for the DMR; role accounts are not acceptable. As stated in previous announcements, the deadline for establishing voter eligibility was 7 October 2009. Warm regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless
[WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council
I wanted to point out that we have an allie WISP and friend running for ARIN's Advisory board. He is... Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet (also known from Virginia ISP association) Please offer your support and vote, if you have an AS and eligible to vote. Why is IP space so expensive? Why do small ISPs pay the bulk of the cost, and large providers pay next to nothing per IP? Because ARIN's board usually was comprised of large ISPs. Lets get the voice of small ISPs to the ARIN board! If you agree, spread the word. Link to Voting listed below... Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: ARIN Member Services i...@arin.net To: t...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:29 PM Subject: Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council Elections for three (3) seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and five (5) seats on the ARIN Advisory Council will be held online 21-31 October. Details of the election procedures will be presented at the 21 October Public Policy Meeting and will be posted on ARIN's website. The final slate of candidates is: Board of Trustees: * Paul Andersen, EGATE Networks, Inc. * Scott Bradner, Harvard University * Lee Howard, Time Warner Cable * Aaron Hughes, 6connect * Frederick Silny, Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. Advisory Council: * Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet * John Brown, Citylink Fiber Holdings * Rudolf Daniel, Independent * Steve Feldman, CBS Interactive * Wes George, Sprint * Chris Grundemann, TW Telecom Inc / CO ISOC * Stacy Hughes, Guavus, Inc * Kevin Hunt, Hunt Brothers of Louisiana, LLC * Mark Johnson, MCNC * Ed Kern, Cisco * Chris Morrow, Google * Christopher Savage, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP * Heather Schiller, Verizon * Rob Seastrom, Afilias * Scott Weeks, Hawaiian Telcom * Tom Zeller, Indiana University Thomas Leonard and Bill Sandiford did not receive the 172 petition signatures from designated member representatives to be included on the final slate of candidates for the Advisory Council. Additionally note that on 29 September Kevin Kargel withdrew his candidacy from the Advisory Council. Many of the candidates will address the membership at the 21 October Members Meeting in Dearborn. Individuals unable to attend the meeting can watch the live webcast to hear the speeches. These candidate speeches will be posted to the website within 3 days. Brief biographies and a form to voice support for candidates can be found at: https://www.arin.net/app/election/ Designated member representatives (DMR) from ARIN's General Members in good standing will be eligible to vote for three (3) candidates in the Board election and five (5) candidates in the Advisory Council election. ARIN Member Services requires a name and personalized e-mail address be on record for the DMR; role accounts are not acceptable. As stated in previous announcements, the deadline for establishing voter eligibility was 7 October 2009. Warm regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 are you handling VOIP services over WiFi?
Yeah, the basic rule of thumb is, you cant guarantee something that you dont control. Meaning different peices of the solution are often handled by different entities so it can be hard to identify the accountable party. Be prepared to have wireless always blaimed for the problem first. If you get into the venture with that understanding upfront, you'll be better prepared to deal with it. I recognize that I avoided your actual question. I'm not sure their is a best practice, as there are many practices that work well. I'd advise narrowing down your question, to get more relevent help. What are you looking to learn? How to optimize other VOIP services over your wifi network? How to lauch your own? What platforms are best? What partners are best? Best working wifi VOIP phones? How to pick reliable partners for your situation? How does one measure wifi reliabilty for handling VOIP? Many of the Asterix support websites have a lot of good info to read, even if you plan on using something else. WISPA also have several VOIP vender member partners who may be able to help. (off top of head NetSapien and Vox, although there may be more) Consistent latency is one of the more critical network characteristics needed for reliable VOIP. (any thing under 170 ms is usually survivable as long as consistent) Its hard to get consistent latency over basic wifi without any QOS controls. Queuing can help. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: pat p...@inlandnet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: [WISPA] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi? I haven't been able to find much in the way of white papers for information regarding VOIP over WiFi. If someone could share some info with me I would appreciate it. Thanks, Pat WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi?
I disagree. VOIP works as well as the quality of all the the networks teh call transverses. You own network may be jsut one of the networks involved. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi? Simply put, VoIP runs on anything that supports TCP/IP. How well it runs simply comes down to the down to how well you designed your network and how well you implement QoS features. Jonathan Schmidt wrote: In my simple home case it works fine. I've got Cisco and Polycom VoIP phones around the house in places I can't get Ethernet and use Buffalo bridges and they all link back to my Asterisk which links to my office Asterisk via RoadRunner. It's been absolutely wireline quality for a couple of years. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi? I find the success of VoIP exactly opposite of you. I directly relate it to the quality of the Wireless network it runs on... We do LOTS of both. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Layne Sisk la...@serverplus.com Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:58 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi? We have found that the success of VOIP over WiFi is directly related to the quality of the VOIP provider. Some providers have higher QOS built into their system and those have very good success. Others have tried shortcuts and those tend to have much more frequent problems. It really is like your network, if you build it right it works pretty well but if you take shortcuts they can come back to bite you. -Layne Layne Sisk ServerPlus -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of pat Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] How are you handling VOIP services over WiFi? I haven't been able to find much in the way of white papers for information regarding VOIP over WiFi. If someone could share some info with me I would appreciate it. Thanks, Pat -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] XBOX 360
The only issue we have with Xbox are situations where XBOX Live tells the end user that their router is not a high enough level of compatibilty, so it is not allowed to connect with all Xbox live sessions.. (sorry I forget the exact term they use). To Fix that it requires two things... 1) The port forward rules... TCP/UDP 3074 and UDP 88. 2) for Linksys under security, uncheck everything Block Anonymous Internet Requests , Filter Multicast , Filter Internet NAT Redirection , Filter IDENT(Port 113). Not every thing there matters, but I forget which one or two is relevent. For us Xbox performance has not been an issue, and it should be noted that we only have residential customers on Trango 900Mhz sectors, averaging 40 homes per sector. There is just a big a chance that the XBOX users are getting congestion on XBOX's Hosted Server side of the connection, dependant on which they are using to establish connection. If you suspect your network, then I'd look for basic network quality type things like latency and packet loss on all hops end to end. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike m...@aweiowa.com To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:41 PM Subject: [WISPA] XBOX 360 I have a couple XBOX 360 players saying they are having lag issues. It seems a low bandwidth consumer. How are you guys optimizing for them? I'd like to try and make them happier. Is there a down side? I know Marlon asked last winter but a good answer never appeared on the list. Thanks WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Brilliant dish mount
The idea is great. But I challenge whether that single Ubolt is a very secure way to mount the Dish bracket to the J-arm, considering windload. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brilliant dish mount I've been doing many of my installs this way for years. I really like it. -RickG On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: Under eave/over eave/facia/tree Can't believe nobody thought of this sooner. http://www.mowinet.com [cid:image001.jpg@01CA41AD.4ADCEA60] [cid:image002.jpg@01CA41AD.4ADCEA60] Broadband for Business Public and Private WiFi http://www.aircloud.com Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 x2 P Please consider the environment before printing this email WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] test-ignnore
Testing 123. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: [WISPA] Multipath I am curious if anyone thinks this is multipath and has a suggestion on how to fix. This just happens to be my dads house, radio mounted to a j-mount on eve of house, clear LOS to tower 1 mile away, -56 signal. This eve is over the porch roof to the east and signal shoots over the south plane of the roof which is an approx 30deg angle. I was over this morning and he is complaining the Internet is not working and I go in to do some troubleshooting. I setup a constant ping to the AP and I am getting 1ms, I start to browse and the pings jump to 300ms and random lost packets. Configure a new radio in the house and have a -75 signal in the house, try the ping thing again and all seems fine. I replace he radio on the roof and I am back to the poor ping times again. Now I don't understand multipath as well I should but it seems to make sense in this case. Is it possible to reduce or remedy without moving the radio to a totally different location? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, 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] Waverider Vs Alvarion VL 900
I'd really like to hear some success stories from people using Name brand 900Mhz OFDM, compared to non-OFDM.. Or more importantly, if anyone has had bad experience with Name brand 900Mhz OFDM, compared to non-OFDM.. I'd also like input from Name Brand OFDM 900Mhz manufacturers regarding what embedded filering they might have in their radios, to combat noise which is just about everywhere with 900Mhz. Let me explain I recognize in a noise free environment, it likely works well, but I'm also concerned with the amount of after-rain fade 900Mhz has, and what that does to OFDM and higher QAM modulations that require higher SNR budgets. Over the last 5 years, I of course have evaluated ALL non-OFDM 900Mhz products. I've done most of my OFDM testing with ALL the OEM (Atheros mPCI) brand 900Mhz products. But I avoided spending the big bucks on Name brand OFDM gear, just to do Demos. But in my Live Testing, I'm regularly running into quality issues with the Oem OFDM products, and the stories all end the same. Eventually the final solution is I put a Trango DSSS 900Mhz sector in its place, and then I finally get consistent quality and gain a happy customer. Since the beginning of time, Trango had always been a strong 900Mhz product to get the job done because its ability to work in high noise enviroments, due to its high quality built-in filtering, which is near equivelent to a Cavity Filter. In my experience, I've successfully run quality Trango links at receive strengths lower than the scanned noise floor, where as with Atheros running at the noise floor is a formula for prompt dis-association and sporatic high latency, even w/ the spec sheet showing embedded filtering. At first, I questioned the OEM OS that included the Atheros, but I've seen similar results with all OEM OSes. Please recognize these comments are not mean to bash any product or promote any specific product. We successfully use Atheros OEM systems in many locations also. So what I'm trying to establish is... Has my experience been fairly compairing DSSS to OFDM, or Should the real comparison be about the difference between high quality gear versus low budget lower quality gear? Is there an equivellent to a Trango 900Mhz (quality against noise), in OFDM? Has anyone taken a challenging 900Mhz DSSS deployment (Canopy/Trango/First-gen Waverider) and successfully upgraded it to OFDM 900Mhz with out loosing significant amount of customers and/or coverage? And if so, Have you successfully been about to get three Horizonal sectors colocated? With Trango, we were able to get three horizontal sectors colocated, wth minimal self-interference as long as we used Titlek high quality antennas, and had about 10 feet min verticle seperation between them. I see that it would be a tougher challenge to accomplish the same with OFDM that required higher SNR. Sure the 900Mhz OFDM looks good on a spec sheet or likely good for PTP links, but now that its 6 months to a year down the road, whats the real world take for PtMP cell sites? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 - Text Messages
What would be interesting is how many were inbound versus outbound, and the ratio. Real Converstaion is usually equally bi-directional. If they are havy inbound, She could be getting heavilly text message spammed. Or on text message List servs. (does twitter send to SMS text?) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] NAT Limits on StarOS/Mikrotik
I'd argue that if you are running with 69000 connections, you could be running into multiple problems. I cant comment on StarOS specifically, but one of the reasons we upgarded our servers from 2.4Kernal to 2.6 kernel was because of connection tracking table size. 2.6 kernels allowed management of the number of connection (able to delete from table) without rebooting and terminating all connections. By the way, performance degragation was limited due to Clocking (# of ticks per second), that was not updated until kernel 2.6. One of the issues is that poorly written applications or virus/spyware dont close sessions properly, so they stay there in the table as inactive state but still in the table for the specified duration (it might be 7 days by default?). (its purposely designed to do that). Linux doesn't work fast with tons of connections in its tables, and when you get tons of connections it will show heavy speed degregation for users. My point is that you might not only be running into a NAT issue and available ports, but also a problem of low performance when to many connections in the table. In our deployments we turned connection tracking off on all our Staros APs, because they didn't have enough memory or processing power to deal with it, and then upgraded our Kernels on our core Linux routers that we used connection tracking on. There are other reason why having 1700 subs to a single NATted IP might be a bad idea, so I'd recommend changing that regardless of the cause of the problem you are currently troubleshooting. For example, what do you do if a user's IP gets blacklisted due to AUP report? You then have 1700 customers blacklisted. If the core router fails, you have 1700 people down. Etc, etc. If one user gets a virus, all uses get hammered when all teh connections are terminated. We had one car dealership that added 120,000 entries to the connection table within about 8 hours. It was due to a poorly written WAN application. They fixed it, and it curred the problem. But it was tough to deal with the problem, and identify why it was occuring. But my point is... why risk all the subs, if all it takes is a single customer to create a connection problem issue? What you'll likely want to do is write some scripts to analyze the content of the connection table. To determine if the majority of connections are getting eaten up by just a few customers, or equally distributed between customers? And determine the percentage that are active sessions versus inactive sessions?. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Cogent's bandwidth is actually very high quality bandwidth now, and their tech support is great.. Cogent's current problem is their company's internal operational structure is a mess and clueless. Dispute resolution is impossible, and sales reps are powerless to help their clients.. (Its a shame, they have some good sales reps over there, that try real hard and deserve better.) But Cogent isn't the low ball transit provider anymore in colos. Cogent is still one of the lower few for standalone buildings at 100mbps. But there are lots of Gig-E providers that are cheaper now.. 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Cogent? I remember when they offered 1Gb/$3k and the ISPs jumped on it, then they bumped it to $6k for 1Gb for ISPs. I thought they recently went to $4/Mb with the We match any price. Although I didn't really like them when we were doing the servers/datacenter thing years ago, they have made some improvements to make themselves attractive. 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 sa...@jeffcosoho.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Importance: High $600/mth for 100/100M in the US and EU on a 1GB port. $7/M if you burst over 100M. Basically you get $6/M for committed bandwidth and $7/M over commitment. If any of yawl want to send me your address off-list, I will see where the nearest POP is. My house is 33 miles from the data center and loop on fiber is $1700/mth. Yes, I could shoot it out here but I really like setting on glass. Jim Blair Davis wrote: $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speeddegradetp Zero then drop- repeat.
Update for those Interested I loaded the newest stable rel MT OS v 3.30 on all the radio. It did not help. The problem still existed. To review we had two clients a and b, and b was the one that would drop link if pass traffic in upload direction. Initially it was impossible to upload the firmware to the clientB. So I temporarily disabled clientA, and then it was possible to successfully upload new OSfirmware to clientB. So, I replicated the setup in the lab today, with 5 MT SBCs, of the same type as in the field. The only difference is I was out of XR900s so I used 5.Xghz cards. Initially I could not relicate the problem. So I decided to enduce some noise (a Trango AP randomly pointing to and away and to the test bed in a controlled fassion). I was able to replicate the problem. And yes the 411 system (equivellent to clientB) that had 5db better signal was the one that dropped link when the Trango noise was induced, just like in the field. What was most interesting is the results of the Bandwdith test, when noise was induced. Note we were simultaneously running 1500byte ping across both radios simultanous to MT bandwidth test to clientB, and accross clientA we ran a timed Iperf to generate triffic. . When noise was slowly induced, the pings stopped passing traffic first, then about a second or two later, the MT Bandwidth test (same results set at UDP or TCP) started the incremental slow down, 800mbps to 700mbps, to 500mbps, to 300 mbps until reached Zero, and then when at Zero the wifi session to ClientB dropped. So first thing we realized is that the MT Bandwdith test incremental slow down was a misleading symptom. Its the results the tool will always show when any Noise gets injected onto the link to the level that full packet traffic won't pass. Second thing noticed... In our original test bed, clientB was on Station WDS, and CLientA on WDS Slave. This is because clientB is the 411 board and has License level 3, and we figured it would only support station modes. We also switched ClientA to station WDS, and when we did that, and injected noise, it took a bit longer and more noise before the noise caused links to drop, and it also eventually caused ClientA to also drop along with ClientB. That last test was done at end of day, as we were finishing up. Tommorrow, we are going to substitute a 433board for teh 411 board, and see if we get different results or not. Tommorrow we are also going to try different configuration methods other than WDS modes, to see if the links drop as easilly in the same way or not. So in summary I can conclusively say The original way I had radio configured wa sperfectly acceptable for low noise conditions. But with 900Mhz, I surely will run into sporatic noise, atleast at that site.. It is clear that noise was integating the odd behavior from the MT radios. It is also clear noise was at the AP side. What we still will be investigating is how come one radio was effected more than the other, and if we can find alternate MT configs to allow clients to be more noise resilient. In a nutshell, disconnections occured to soon on the one unit. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speeddegradetp Zero then drop- repeat. WDS and nstreme can be used with wireless-test I hear. Before that it was not workable at all. Any load seems to kill your links - that has to be kept on mind. 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 Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: Well your problem reminded me of wds + nstreme problem is why I brought it up. I believe wireless-test will fix this. How can WDS and NStreme be used togeather? I thought it had to be one or the other? Any way you could test the links disconnected from the rest of the network and see if stressing the links drops it? Will do that if necessary, after firmware update. Are the links losing wireless association? Yes, they do when it reaches Zero mbps, then immediately restablishes association. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat. Well your problem reminded me of wds + nstreme problem is why I brought it up. I believe wireless-test will fix this. Any
Re: [WISPA] Router suggestions
Yeah... But when the MT config gets accidentally misconfigured, its not easy to walk the customer through reprogramming it, as it is with a linksys. Its a double edge sword. But, we've been thinking about using the MT as a home gateway simply because the Linksys's crap out so often, and because the MT can double up as a wireless repeater, for the neighbor homes. But had a question Using Linksys type SOHOs doing NAT is really easy, because things like PPTP and IPSEC passthrus, FTP compatibilty, and XBOX LIVE security, works right out of the box with a click of a checkbox. Historically, with Linux, NAT (or IP MAsqerading) is a pain in the neck, because Active FTP and PPTP dont simply work by default. It requires addition of some syntax complicated IPTables configs to allow it. Or atleast some helper modules that load at boot time. So my questions is How easy is it to solve those problems with Mikrotik OS, to support the above common compatibilty things? So a rookie techs can configure the MT in just minutes during install, equivellent to a Linksys? Does someone have a common default config to sahre that they just load everytime by default, before modifying end user specific config? Or is it easy enough, to do it from scratch each time? Or are those things fixed by default? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Router suggestions I view the money for Mikrotik gear as a sound investment, due to its versatility. I don't mind paying a bit more for it rather than dlink, netgear, trend etc... Also - the RB750 can't be reset by typical user pushing the reset button - I hate that. Oh, it doesn't work lets hit reset button then they say they didn't touch it. Further more, the additional built in tools and flexibility make it an easy buy for me. I have thrown away loads of linksys, dlink etc gear that starts acting up or craps out. I have never thrown away a MT for acting up or crapping out from normal use through the years. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 6:51 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Router suggestions If that new router had wireless it would be a 40 dollar piece of awesomeness. On 9/20/09, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Too expensive for a home router. I do use them most everywhere else, though. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:57 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Router suggestions Mikrotik? 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: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Router suggestions I'm looking for suggestions on an 802.11 router with multiple LAN ports where I can disable the NAT capability... making it a bridge. I used to use the TrendNet TEW-452BRP, but it's EOL and the TEW-633GR is too expensive ($100). I'm looking for something in the $30 - $45 area. No Linksys, I don't want to tarnish my name. :-p - 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
Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle Tower Space Leasing
I can put up a used 160' tower for 2 grand plus a 500 buck permit here Depend on the location. In my town, it will cost $17,000 minimum just for the first phase of a special exception process with County Zoning. Then what if you need to get up 300-400ft? 300-400ft towers are way more expensive to build, and to get permission to build. And in this county a lot large enough to qualify for a tower cant be had for anything less than about $500k. The county property tax alone for the site would easilly be $8000/year. Sure if you live in remote rural America, where a lot can be had for $4-5K, and 150ft tower will do, where there is no one that can see the tower except for the people that NEED your service, (so no one to protest), sure building your own may be the way to go. But if you live in that type area, you can use that arguement to negotiate a lower price for colocation. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle Tower Space Leasing That's just crazy money. I can put up a used 160' tower for 2 grand plus a 500 buck permit here. I decided to just look for some land. With that kind of money it just makes sense to own and not lease around here. I have 3 towers in storage but have been hesitant to do much with them. Thanks for the response. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Neal Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle Tower Space Leasing Last I looked, 3 sectors and 2 2' backhauls would be $1800/mo+. For a single sector and one backhaul it was still over $1000/mo. -Kevin On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Does anyone here lease space from Crown Castle? I have a cell tower in an area I've been trying to find access in and this tower is in a good spot for us and our tier 1 provider has fiber running right across the road from it. Any idea what they charge and issues with them? Looks to be a big company so I doubt they will lease cheaply. Thanks! Bob- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
possible that unbundling could occur at some point to increase consumer's costs. Bundling was a technique to win market share, unbundling become a way to increase profits, once they own the market. My point here is that small providers will all be better off with all on one Internet, with terms that are acceptable to all parties, so they keep it that way. NetNeutrality is not only about Network Management. Its also about freedom to be the type of provider we want to be. Policy makers should not favor content providers to control what the Internet evolves to. And providers should not be forced to do something beyond the core concepts of the Internet. Policy to force Providers to become TV providers is just plain wrong. And forcing strict Netnetrality laws will force providers to only build networks that can handle consumer demand whcih will eventually become TV services, if we are forced to allow it. We need to seperate Internet Access from Advanced Broadband, which in my mind are two totally different topics. Rules that might be acceptable for advanced wired broadband may be totally wrong for core Internet Access, and vice versa. Focing the two to be one and the same, is wrong, because all providers and networks are not the same. And by all means any NetNetrality rule passed should be a bi-directional rule. If all access provider are forced to deliver all content, all content providers should be forced to interconnect with all access providers, if requested. We could simply take the approach of stop regulation, stay our of our business, but if we can come up with good ideas, it may be more favorable to state what rules we think could work. But most importantly state what rules will not, and why. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Curtis Maurand wrote: I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're saying (or at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the peanut gallery). Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official position on this? I'm not saying net neutrality is bad, because I adore the principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't pass some overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger operators, that makes it difficult or impossible for smaller outfits (like mine!) to keep things running smoothly. 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] Crown Castle Tower Space Leasing
There was a time when that was the case... But Crown has evolved in recent years, and their staff as well are learning more about the value of the WISP market, and what costs our market will bear. For me Crown has been a pleasure to work with. Just like any relationship, to get good terms, it requires an established ongoing relationship, and committment from both parties to create value for the other party. In my opinion, the secret is putting yourself in their shoes and understanding their position for each transaction. By understanding teh dynamics of the site, it helps determine what things can be asked for or not successfully. Admitted, the process is very slow, (and there fore sometimes frustrating), but from our experience the process with all tower companies has been slow, so that is an irrelevent factor. And if you are in teh wholesale business, you WANT the process to be slow, and you dont want a leasor that gives everyone else as good of terms as they give you, since you have the ongoing relationship. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Crown Castle Tower Space Leasing Crown Castle is one of the worst companies (think ATT) I have ever dealt with. They dont know their right hand from the left. Dont expect anything to get done, especially billing. -RickG On 9/21/09, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Does anyone here lease space from Crown Castle? I have a cell tower in an area I've been trying to find access in and this tower is in a good spot for us and our tier 1 provider has fiber running right across the road from it. Any idea what they charge and issues with them? Looks to be a big company so I doubt they will lease cheaply. Thanks! Bob- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Well I'd look at it like... If you own a restaurant, although you have a for pay menu, what you are really selling is a seat at the table to access it. The table is like Broadband Access. Should a restaurant owner be aloud to kick out squatters who just order a $1 drink, and sit at the table all day, preventing others from using it, as the dinner waiting line continues to grow? Must all restaurants be required to sell all you can eat menus? And must a fine dining restaurant be forced to allow patrons to bring in their McDonald's meals and sit at the table, if they patron wants to? To the contrary, last time I went to the movie theatre, they had security guards checking purses making sure patrons weren't sneaking in Sodas and Candy bars not bought at the theatre's over priced consession stand. Should they be allowed to prevent bring your own? It just amazes me the double standard that the public and policy makers have. Why is broadband different that it doesn't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the world? I can answer that, the difference is one can be a monoply and the other industries likely aren't. But maybe that is the underlying problem to begin with? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Vogel jvo...@vogent.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying I enjoy Free Speech right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!. Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define reasonable. It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about free speech. NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. Agreed. should not need. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. Disagree. Things dont always work as they should, and the dominant players control the negoatiation. Thre are some services that historically are expected to be offered by an Access provider, and access providers need the option to offer them reliably without copetitive sabatage or threat. The most common example is... No, a goliath ISP should not be allowed to say I dont want to receive or send mail to small ISP, so we are going to block it. Nor should they be able to say no, we aren't going to accept DNS queries from the small ISP, unless in violation of AUP prior to it being solved. content needs to be defined, differently than services that all ISP must be able to offer and exchange communication with all other ISP.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the decider and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying I enjoy Free Speech right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when ATT doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If ATT wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling ATT what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!. Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I'd like to point out one thing I think is backwards... Policy makers have said and inferred they are targeting regulation on wired providers, and not sure they'll include wireless because they realize there are many challenges in Wireless networks, such as roaming agreements and paying for spectrum in auctions), and shouldn;t make policy to prevent investment. My point is that when they mention wireless they are often refrring to mobile cell phone wireless broadband. It would be a backwards situation and be a dis-service to the public, if NetNeutrality laws passed for wireline but dont apply to mobile wireless in some capacity. Probably the largest abuse of violating NetNeutrality concepts are the Proprietary Mobile Cell phone providers, that charge by the minute w/ metered billing, so they get compensated for usage, but simultaneous deny others access to providing content. Whats the harm in other content being offered, if there is a method to pay the access provider? The big defense that Broadbnad Providers legitimately have is that consumers want low flat rate pricing, and low flat rate may not be possible if NetNeutrality concepts are force upon providers. Mobile carriers currently aren't structured the same, and lose that defense. Lets look briefly look at BTOP and Auctions. Small providers cant win auctions. BTOP proved large monopoly type companies choose against programs where they are limited with Netnetrality and Open Access. As a result some smaller providers will win BTOP money. IF Open Access and Net Neutrality laws were to be assigned to ALL future auction winners of Spectrum, it could force lower bid prices, and again smaller providers a better chance of buying spectrum at auction. Should Mobile cell phone licensed spectrum broadband providers be exempt from NetNEtrality laws, if they pass? I'm still paying $200/month for a loaded cell phone plan. And then add the $50 per kid to it. Far more expensive than Cable TV per room/per kid. Why should a cell phopne provider be able to charge seperately (twice) for phone and data, when new public and policy makers are pushing for advanced broadband to iclude all data, voice, and TV. ? Shouldn;t a cell phone be considered advanced broadband as a mobile tripple play device? Why target just fixed wired services? NetNeutrality has heavilly been about preventing cable TV companies from playing unfair, and justifying that consumers shouldn;t ahve to pay both $69 for TV and $69 for Internet, when they can get both for the price of one, with NetNeutrality. Personally, I'd rather pay the smaller duplicate TV cost ($69), and save on all the Cell phone costs, that are making a much bigger dent to my wallet. Maybe NetNeutrality is targeting the wrong segment of the industry? Maybe more regulation should be put on the mobile carriers? After all, mobile broadband carriers, are becomming WISP's biggest rural underserved market competitors. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I would like to applaud everyone and add my $.02. This has been extremely professional, though everyone has their own opinions. Thanks. I have been not blocking, but limiting P2P so that it doesn't take up all resources as someone put. There are still some people that find ways around it. I don't limit because I feel they are getting something they shouldn't or even because I think it is illegal, I do it because I don't want others' experiences to be slow or bad because of these network applications. If there is one, I can limit the CPE to not exceed, therefore not taking air-time. If I have several, it is much harder and more has to be done at the AP to fairly distribute that load. It is not so much the bandwidth I limit, it is the air time that is valuable to me. The more they use, the less others can. With the hope of newer technologies like N, WiMax, and LTE, this airtime is dealt with better and is less of a threat. The bandwidth hogs will go away when the entire industry transitions to a metered system. I don't think it is too far behind with Netflix, Hulu, YouTube HD, etc. Now that is the most fairest way to deal with customers/bandwidth hogs. I see it as selling a connections for $X and charging by the Gig. That way all models work, as long as we can still prioritize the air-waves, not so much the bandwidth. That is how almost all utilities work. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Vogel Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Jack, I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much addressing you
Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff ones ? The expensive Alvarian VL uses a standard Atheros Chipset. But Alvarion has its own MAC, which is the secret to its more robust offering. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? None of the above. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi Answers inline... On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided their own TDD mac. Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their own proprietary MAC. Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff ones ? I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated Full Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. Hummm, a single half-duplex instead of two half-duplex ones like nstreme dual. This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there is some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to make that viable. Yes, Ceragon representatives confirm that they are indeed OEM'ing RAD/Radwin. Outside of that, I cant help. But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform RFC-2544 performance testing ? Agilent FrameScope Pro, but looking forward to less expensive tools. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yes, if its a licensed spectrum proposal, so can control noise floor, and can design to operate at lower receive sensitivities, yes then my comment does not apply. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu imceaex-_o=cti_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects They either lie or they legitimately dont know what they are doing. Or maybe you don't know what is possible with licensed spectrum =) For example, in the 2.5 GHz band, there are over 30 6 MHz channels available (e.g., almost 200 MHz of spectrum) -- we have one customer that owns/leases almost every channel in their respective market (I believe they're at 28 or so), and they have the ability to do some really cool stuff -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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still available and not already sold to someon else. Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless middle mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has been sold already. Example: Grant winner builds out 300mbps licensed link. Grant winner agrees to open access. Grant winner sells 300mbps of capacity to Wholesale partner. Grant winner no longer has to sell bandwidth to anyone else, its already all been sold. Wholesale partner reserves it all, and sells it to subs as ordered over time. The grant winner itself is subject to the sharing rules, but the wholesale partner that capacity was sold to, will not necessarilly be subject to sharing. I see so many possibilities for games, to control who does and doesn't get access to the bandwidth. In our unsubmitted application, we legitimately wanted multiple wholesale partners, and pre-defined who we'd sell it to, and pre-allocated capacity for that. I'm not so sure other grant applicants equally embrace the wholesale open access principles. In my mind, I think history should be the ruling factor. If someone preveiously whoesaled, they are likely to continue wanting to wholesale. If they didn;t before, they probably wont want to afterwords, and will likely play games. Just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu imceaex-_o=cti_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach
Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided their own TDD mac. Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their own proprietary MAC. I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated Full Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there is some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to make that viable. Outside of that, I cant help. But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform RFC-2544 performance testing ? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:13 PM Subject: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi I'm trying to figure out what's under the hood of Radwin Winlink-1000 / RAD AirMux-200 and the MIMO model Radwin-2000 / RAD AirMux-400, in order to better understand what traffic patterns may or may not be suited to these radios. Although costly backhaul vendors (Redline, Motorola) keep telling me that RAD/Radwin are Wi-Fi based, my testing of them insist on telling me otherwise... for instance, AirMux-200 pass with flying colors thru RFC-2544 performance testing with maximum performance (18 Mbps) even for 64 byte frames (27 kpps), which is a very good pps rate compared to the 2kpps of a Ubiquiti Nanostation (non-M). Data rates are indeed similar comparing AirMux-200 to 802.11a, although Radwin tops at 48 Mbps air rate, not 54 Mbps; the MIMO model have data rates that look very much like the MCS8-15 802.11n data rates, suggesting that there are indeed some Wi-Fi heritage in the product, no matter what the tests say. Any ideas on what is going down to the bit level ? Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
I could not volunteer to review apps, because I am involved as a grant applicant, and it would have compromised my eligibility. It is disappointing that my app did not make submission in round1, but it will be there in round2. I think it is awesome that you offered your time to contribute to the review process! I hope more follow your lead. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Tom DeReggi wrote: Again, I jsut hope decission makers are smart enough to see the truth, and grant to those with the most proven experience. The best way to help ensure this would have been to volunteer to review the grants (unless, of course, you're interested in pursuing a grant yourself). I really hope I'm not the only WISP employee who did so. I think it's too late to volunteer and still review the first round of grant applications, but there will be further rounds over the next several months. As there are more than a few applications asking for money to build out wireless, a few extra nonsense-detectors wouldn't hurt. 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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
I dont have much confident in anyone gaining access to someone else's network inexpensively, unless that network is owned by a small local company, short in front end sales resources themselves, that truly benefits from having other partners to drive demand. Example... Yesterday I tried to buy capacity (7 mbps) Wholesale access to TowerStream's broadband network for 1 day, and they quoted me $11,000 and refused to budge. And they had a live tower/NOC 500 yards away. The wholesale price for 1 year, would have been just as bad. Obviously, we chose another option. To them, its all about what the market will bear, and has absolutely nothing to do with their cost. Many grant winners will have the same mentality, and the fact that they got their grant for free, will have no effect on their pricing sctructure, or pricing structure for wholesale, or desire to even havea wholesale offering. The truth is, I just dont see Public traded or VC funded companies sharing their grant funded networks ethically, regardless of the open access requirments. And a lot of the grant winners are likely going to be the one with financial and investment backing. Its different for small WISPs. Small WISPs partner with other WISPs all the time, because there is a mutual benefit for doing so. I sure hope some small WISPs win some grants, and maybe the wholesale requirements of the program might actually make it to a beneficial reality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Nah, the plan they have is just to use microwave to bring it in. A system of towers, is what they propose. No fiber. A million bucks worth of towers and radios? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Why not? You should be able to take advantage of that cheaper bandwidth too I'd think. Assuming it's a fiber build, they are going to have tons of excess capacity. Chuck On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Robert West wrote: In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat.
Well your problem reminded me of wds + nstreme problem is why I brought it up. I believe wireless-test will fix this. How can WDS and NStreme be used togeather? I thought it had to be one or the other? Any way you could test the links disconnected from the rest of the network and see if stressing the links drops it? Will do that if necessary, after firmware update. Are the links losing wireless association? Yes, they do when it reaches Zero mbps, then immediately restablishes association. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat. Well your problem reminded me of wds + nstreme problem is why I brought it up. I believe wireless-test will fix this. Any way you could test the links disconnected from the rest of the network and see if stressing the links drops it? Are the links losing wireless association? On 9/16/09, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: No I am not using nstreme now. However, to expand on the conversationsand history of the job I am using WDS because that is the standard configuration that has always worked for us. We have a central routing platform at the nearest regional tower and bandwdith manage via VLAN, so we wanted all our leg radios to be true bridges, for easy consistent management of IP space. Many of our MT isntalls are configured for VLAN. When we originally selected WDS for our standard config, taht was like 3 years ago, with the earlier MT 2.X versions, and some of teh alternate methods did not properly work as stated in manual. For example, back then Station WDS didn't work right. Now a couple years later, and up to many version of 3.X, we want to re-investigate what is best practices. In this particular case, Subscriber A had to be a true bridge for various reasons so used WDS. But SubscriberB was an end user residential client, connected with a Linksys router, and could have worked fine as a standard wifi client. What we tried to do first was setup a Virtual AP. Leave Custoemr A on WDS, and then setup CustomerB as a standard wifi station on the Virtual AP standard AP. But we couldn't get the Virtual AP to pass traffic. We weren't sure if it was a config mistake or a incompatible configuration, doing both WDS and Virtual AP on the same WLAN. So that is why we reconfigured everything back to all WDS. We are looking for alternate configuration options, if better. In this particular case, we were very concerned about hidden node type issues, and concerned using regular WDS for both clients could cause significant Hideen Node type colissions or self interference. SubA was like 5 miles away, and pushes much larger amount of traffic, SubB was like 1 mile away, and low use residential. We were concerned Residential SubB could get performance issues because of SubA's traffic use. We were debating whether NStreme w/ polling would have been the best configuration for the solution. Does NStreme polling allow full bridging like WDS? Do you have any recommendations on best practice config now for MT PTMP, (without routing)? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat. You're not using nstreme are you? 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 Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if anyone has any insight. A summary config is I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5 Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags VLAN ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself does not have any VLAN configured. I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything. Both mPCI cards are set up as AP and then WDS interfaces configured. The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created for that. The XR900 has two subscriber points. So there are two WDS interfaces set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber. So all three WDS interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under one Bridge. SubscriberA has a 433AH also
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
They either lie or they legitimately dont know what they are doing. What do you think will happen, when they promise more than can be really delivered, and they get grant money? Will the feds take themoney back, or shutdown the WISP, and turn off all teh subs? No. People wont care that the grant winner lied, because its better to have 3mbps then nothing, when the truth is proven. Thats why I hate these competitive grants based on claims made by the applicants. Again, I jsut hope decission makers are smart enough to see the truth, and grant to those with the most proven experience. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: St. Louis Broadband li...@stlbroadband.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects I am just not getting this. We have two competitors that state that they can provide 14 Mbps wireless broadband to a very heavily tree canopied area. The best we could do is with 900 MHz and that would only provide 3.3 Mbps, if luck. How can these folks get away with such amazing statements? Victoria -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects I dont have much confident in anyone gaining access to someone else's network inexpensively, unless that network is owned by a small local company, short in front end sales resources themselves, that truly benefits from having other partners to drive demand. Example... Yesterday I tried to buy capacity (7 mbps) Wholesale access to TowerStream's broadband network for 1 day, and they quoted me $11,000 and refused to budge. And they had a live tower/NOC 500 yards away. The wholesale price for 1 year, would have been just as bad. Obviously, we chose another option. To them, its all about what the market will bear, and has absolutely nothing to do with their cost. Many grant winners will have the same mentality, and the fact that they got their grant for free, will have no effect on their pricing sctructure, or pricing structure for wholesale, or desire to even havea wholesale offering. The truth is, I just dont see Public traded or VC funded companies sharing their grant funded networks ethically, regardless of the open access requirments. And a lot of the grant winners are likely going to be the one with financial and investment backing. Its different for small WISPs. Small WISPs partner with other WISPs all the time, because there is a mutual benefit for doing so. I sure hope some small WISPs win some grants, and maybe the wholesale requirements of the program might actually make it to a beneficial reality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Nah, the plan they have is just to use microwave to bring it in. A system of towers, is what they propose. No fiber. A million bucks worth of towers and radios? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Why not? You should be able to take advantage of that cheaper bandwidth too I'd think. Assuming it's a fiber build, they are going to have tons of excess capacity. Chuck On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Robert West wrote: In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband is for their system. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just attachment, whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yes, but it only applies to the infrastructure paid for by grant proceeds. And its up to the applicant to define how and at what price they share wholesale access to their network. Strategically... I had a few thoughts on that, that I missed while working on an app. We generally use all inclusive flat rate pricing that bundles last mile, middle mile, and trasit. That could work to one's disadvantage in a grant app. It might be better to break appart the components, so that the non-discrimination clauses apply only to the portion of the network paid for the grant and not the other components. For example, you might give fixed wholesale access to the middle mile if a middle mile grant, but still charge what you will for Transit or Last mile. Or vice versa, if doing a lat mile grant, hav fixed wholesale rates for last mile (which must include Internet access) but then charge what you want for middle mile only services that were not covered by the grant. My point here is... an ISP is not being forced to comply to the open network standard, they are agreeing to have the network paid for by the grant to be subject to open network policies. So I anticipate that there could be all kinds of games played by the owner of teh grant network, to control how competitive other parties might be trying to use the network on a wholesale network. So there are two concerns here... One is, will you ahve to share your network, and Two, how do you get access to someone elses. To know what option there are to access someone else's network, one must read the terms they submit in their application. But at minimum it must be in compliance with the pre-existing non-dscrimination open access rules referenced to by the NOFA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're suggesting as I understood the circular. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. The NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer money optimally wisely and benefit the public, and adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, but didn;t have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get approved if its less good? And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA what we think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the public that has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that targeted truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that would directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I plan to protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre- existing providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them into the proposal to gain their support. If they didn't do that, they deserve to have their applications protested, in my opinion. As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on applying for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and advising that the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to projects without alledged conflict of interests first, and at minimum deny the conflcit of interest applicants until round2, where they can be mroe
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetpZero then drop- repeat.
PAul, I'll try updating the firmware, that makes sense to try. Upgrading from 3.10 to 3.28, is it likely that I can do that remotely without my client configuration getting lost in the process? (I know how to upgrade packages, I just didn't know if config files are consistent through all the V3.X revs) Tom, We replaced both XR900s on both sides of link. So its not a bad radio card. We did not replace the RB 411, yet. Its also the first time we used a 411 w/ 900Mhz card, so we dont have a track record for knowing compatibilty, yet. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetpZero then drop- repeat. Maybe just bad hardware at Subscriber B? Last week we had an XR-9 ptp link in Houston that behaved somewhat similarly, great speed in one direction, but next to nothing in the other. Shotgunning the radio motherboard (an Alix) fixed it. Haven't gotten it back yet so don't know which went bad. Tom S. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade tpZero then drop- repeat. I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if anyone has any insight. A summary config is I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5 Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags VLAN ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself does not have any VLAN configured. I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything. Both mPCI cards are set up as AP and then WDS interfaces configured. The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created for that. The XR900 has two subscriber points. So there are two WDS interfaces set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber. So all three WDS interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under one Bridge. SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has two mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather. The primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave. This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith test continually at consistent speed. As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test. SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A PS, w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the following results TXing it works perfectly and consistently. But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then slowly reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps, etc, down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and the same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same thing applies, because it receives also. Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP. At first I thought it was noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the same problem. Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power at the SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect. As well, as a test, I disabled the second WDS interface to SubscriberA, and no change. To be clear... SubscriberA and SubscriberB each have their own WDS interface configured on WLAN1 of the 433AH AP. I am using embedded MTOS V 3.10 on each. What is causing this problem? Why is speed received from my SubscriberB incrementally degrading and breaking link? Bridge loops? Is my config valid? RB411 Bug? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] backhaul choices
Thank You,Which is a very relevent question for two reasons... 1) Because, FCC is much more serious about enforcing DFS certification in the 5.4 band, since it can cause real harm to pre-existing 5.4G incumbands if DFS does not work propery, compared to certification issues that are meaningless technicalities but really have to negative side effect if the sticker isn't there. 2) There was one point where some had stated Atheros chips never could trully be certified or MT not trully certified because of the method it uses to do it. I remember responses from teh manufacturer that stated otherwise, and it was possible to comply. That discussion ended up fading away. It would be interesting to learn whether there has been progress in some Atheros Chipsets able to pass true DFS2 certiciation lab tests. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices I think the point about certification was specifically asked regarding the 5.4 version and having been approved for DFS. Thank You, Brian Webster Jerry Richardson wrote: That's been the ongoing argument. I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio needs to be certified, not the whole car. Greg On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote: Pretty broad statement: MT is FCC Certified :) Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if they are, that does not an FCC certified system make. Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems. Something like the RB/card/enclosure combination. Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number for *that system*. Thanks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices MT is FCC Certified :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ralph Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices Marlon- You asked, and you probably already know what I will say Airaya and others: FCC Certified Mikrotik- Not so much It all depends on if you want to be legal or not. If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to work fine for us, just don't mount it outside. Ralph -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices Hi All, I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering what others are using. I've got Airaya gear in place. I've LOVED it. That's been some of the most reliable gear that I've ever used. I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far. We've put quite a bit of it in over the last year or so. Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to the outdoor antennas. So no fancy weather issues to deal with. It would be nice to go with Airaya again. But the MT hardware to do the same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked. I hate to go too cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain. What are you guys using these days? Again, the antennas and such are already in place, all I need to replace is the indoor ratios. Why would you install what you put in? laters, marlon WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat.
No I am not using nstreme now. However, to expand on the conversationsand history of the job I am using WDS because that is the standard configuration that has always worked for us. We have a central routing platform at the nearest regional tower and bandwdith manage via VLAN, so we wanted all our leg radios to be true bridges, for easy consistent management of IP space. Many of our MT isntalls are configured for VLAN. When we originally selected WDS for our standard config, taht was like 3 years ago, with the earlier MT 2.X versions, and some of teh alternate methods did not properly work as stated in manual. For example, back then Station WDS didn't work right. Now a couple years later, and up to many version of 3.X, we want to re-investigate what is best practices. In this particular case, Subscriber A had to be a true bridge for various reasons so used WDS. But SubscriberB was an end user residential client, connected with a Linksys router, and could have worked fine as a standard wifi client. What we tried to do first was setup a Virtual AP. Leave Custoemr A on WDS, and then setup CustomerB as a standard wifi station on the Virtual AP standard AP. But we couldn't get the Virtual AP to pass traffic. We weren't sure if it was a config mistake or a incompatible configuration, doing both WDS and Virtual AP on the same WLAN. So that is why we reconfigured everything back to all WDS. We are looking for alternate configuration options, if better. In this particular case, we were very concerned about hidden node type issues, and concerned using regular WDS for both clients could cause significant Hideen Node type colissions or self interference. SubA was like 5 miles away, and pushes much larger amount of traffic, SubB was like 1 mile away, and low use residential. We were concerned Residential SubB could get performance issues because of SubA's traffic use. We were debating whether NStreme w/ polling would have been the best configuration for the solution. Does NStreme polling allow full bridging like WDS? Do you have any recommendations on best practice config now for MT PTMP, (without routing)? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat. You're not using nstreme are you? 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 Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if anyone has any insight. A summary config is I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5 Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags VLAN ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself does not have any VLAN configured. I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything. Both mPCI cards are set up as AP and then WDS interfaces configured. The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created for that. The XR900 has two subscriber points. So there are two WDS interfaces set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber. So all three WDS interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under one Bridge. SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has two mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather. The primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave. This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith test continually at consistent speed. As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test. SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A PS, w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the following results TXing it works perfectly and consistently. But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then slowly reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps, etc, down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and the same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same thing applies, because
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yeah, it amazes me how much greed was in the applcation. Some large applicants, the wealthiest identified the top number and molded an applcation to go for that dollar amount. For example, Satelite providers approaching 1/2 billion dollars. Or a State asking for 1/50th or more of funds, wanting it all, over their share if each state got only 1 grant, to depleat total available funds. Or companies like Fiber tower with large total dollar of grants, that caters to Cell Phone companies. Why does a mobile RBOC need to submit, and have their income potential restricted, when their wholesale carrier will do it for them? Or Companies like TowerStream, in the top 5 most financed fixed wireless companies, and proven unprofitable business models because they overspend, applying for Urban markets, that clearly ONLY target HIGH ARPU subs, and never in a million years regardless of what their application might say, would EVER serve vulnerable LOW ARPU population, in my opinion. Dont misunderstand me, they are all very fine companies, and I dont blaim them for trying to apply. I just dont see how their company profiles would match the intent of the programs, or the requirement without grant would never be able to cost justify the deployment, or unable to find investment to do it criterias. But with 800+ applicants, there are quite a few for NTIA/RUS to choose from. Just because someone applies doesn't mean they'll be selected. I just hope NTIA/RUS can see the truth behind the applicants' goals, and make the best decissions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:41 PM Subject: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Here is a link to maps of the projects: http://bit.ly/3p2be3 I count four cell phone companies in my areas looking for stimulus money to expand their existing phone networks. What a crock! Also, a big chunk of the country is covered by the Satellite providers wanting money to upgrade their satellite network. Since when does that actually improve broadband availability? I guess it is sort of like broadband-lite. Ack! Matt Larsen vistabeam.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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yes, It definateately IS appropriate to attempt to BLOCK bad applications. The NTIA/RUS has no way to know if an applcation is innapproriate or in conflict of interest if we dont tell them. Quite honestly, the applicant may not know it is in conflict of interest without telling them. I specifically hate applacation that just selected 1 HUGE contiguous area. The reason is, they did't take the time that they should ahve to look down to the census block level to determine what blocks really are and aren't underserved areas. If anything it is the LARGE AREA applicants that are attempting to scam the system, to get grant money for served areas, with the hope no one will protest it. There is nothing wrong with competition. But this grant is NOT creating competition. It is giving the applicant a SUPER HUGE advantage over any other pre-existing provider in the area, and that is anti-American,and anti-fair-competition in my mind. To give a new provider a free network, and the existing provider no funds, is a disaster plan to put pre-existing businesses out of business, and to risk throwing away the much investment made by those original entreprenures. What I recommend is that people diligently protest, but with fact, and suggested resolution. The goal should NOT to prevent the party from gaining a grant to serve truely underserved/unserved areas, but to instead incourage NTIA/RUS to force the applicant to revise its applicant to remedy the conflict of Interest. Also note that once an area gets a grant, it very possible that NTIA/RUS may never give another grant to that same area. When this is done at the Census Block level it is no problem, because applicants can narrow down to each area that they serve and dont serve. But when someone lists an ENTIRE County, it risks that future legitimate application for needy census blocks will be denied because of the area being recorded as already served by a grant applicant. Is it right for an Entire county to be given to a new provider? Remember applicants are required to serve ALL customer in an area. That means they will be getting grant money to put you out of business. I also think there is a misconception that the protestor must prove the data that shows its not underserved. I do not believe that is 100% true. I think ther eis a clear valid arguement that if an applicant cant afford to gather the mapping data to file for their own grant, they surely should not be required to spent lots of money to map the errors in other people's application. I believe aprotestor should only have to protest to the level that creates a reasonable amount of doubt about the applicant. The burden to prove coverage is on the applicant's original submission. So if you protest an applicant by saying it is a served area by cable and fios, the applicant's original data should have to prove it FIOS and Cable does not overlap it, not you. If they submitted incomplete documetnation, that is there problem, and should lead to the disqualification of their application. You being a provider in the area with a small market share, will not likely be enough to protest an application on its own, but it should still be possible to build a case. For example, lets say there are three applicants, and two were careful not tto overlap your coverage, but one applicant did overlap you. Simple state that the applicant that overlapped you clearly did not do his homework to isolate which areas are served or not, and that you support the other two applicants that properly identified and avoided conflciting areas. The idea is to develop support for the applications that won't harm you. And give the NTIA/RUS an option to award grants that will create possitive press and not negative press. I beleive the overnment wants this program to besuccessful, and nobody wants an aftermath press stating things like grant money puts local businesses out of business. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: L. Aaron Kaplan aa...@lo-res.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: Digital Bridge has asked for money for Underserved for the county that I service, the whole county. Questions: 1. Since I am the only WISP in the Rural areas of my county and my standard is 1024/256 with 2.4 and there is 50% of the clients that I cant get due to trees. I assume that that will be seen as Underserved. Is there anything that I can do to get this blocked? Just a quit though - correct me if I am wrong, but... Isnt blocking competition very un-American somehow? Is blocking even possible? I hope you also applied for getting thru the trees, no? 2. Now it appears that they asked for money for all the Census blocks in the county. ALL the cities have My
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. The NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer money optimally wisely and benefit the public, and adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, but didn;t have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get approved if its less good? And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA what we think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the public that has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that targeted truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that would directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I plan to protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre-existing providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them into the proposal to gain their support. If they didn't do that, they deserve to have their applications protested, in my opinion. As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on applying for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and advising that the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to projects without alledged conflict of interests first, and at minimum deny the conflcit of interest applicants until round2, where they can be mroe fairly considered, and so there is more time to gain fact on what is and isn't underserved areas, and consider all potential applicants for the areas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: L. Aaron Kaplan aa...@lo-res.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Seriously? You would categorize government-subsidized broadband expansion as capitalistic competition? I should have said - receiving some funds and thus increasing the speed of biz expansion. I see nothing un-capitalistic per se about receiving funds in order to revive the economy. The real question however is, will *only* the big boys get something thus driving the smaller boys out of biz! (maybe that is the case in the original posting and I just did not know it). *If* the stimulus package would be needed in the first place however, is of course a completely different topic. But seems like I just put my fingers into a wound. Sorry about that. Not intended. --- there's no place like 127.0.0.1, except maybe ::1 (someday) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Chuck, and you will NOT be able to have a section cut out of an otherwise qualifying target census set just because you do cover it. I agree that its not possible to protest it simply based on the protestor covering part of it. Agreed, gerrymandering was incouraged, and I actually agree it should be. But... I disagree that it wont be an option to carve out a piece of the applciation. NTIA/RUS reserved the right to do what ever they want to do. If the protestor can conveince NTIA/RUS that it is in the best interest to all, to simply cut out the conflicting area, its feasible it could occur. I do not believe protesting a GOOD Strong plan will have any effect or value. NObody is going to not fund a good plan because of a wining protestor. But I'm making the statemnet based on the fact that many applicants may have very poor plans. The problem is, it's a fair amount of effort to challenge since *you* have to challenge it at the census block level, just as they had to justify it at the census block level I agree that the protestor has to protest at teh block level for the whole area, to protest the claim of underserved for the defined area, and that would be hard for a protestor. But I disagree, that is always required. Because... You are assuming that the reason one is protesting based on qualification of underserved. And you are assuming that the protestors proof must be complete. If the applicant did a poor job, and their data is incomplete, the protestor's data may only have to be as complete as the applicant's data + 1. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects The problem is, it's a fair amount of effort to challenge since *you* have to challenge it at the census block level, just as they had to justify it at the census block level. And if the area is as the poster describes, it's impossible to challenge. He might have a very good reason why he can't reach even 50% of the residents (that's what he said, I'll remind you) in his area. But, it is irrelevant. They don't care *why* you can't reach the other households...they just care that you don't. If this is a big application then it's going to cover far more than his territory anyway, and you will NOT be able to have a section cut out of an otherwise qualifying target census set just because you do cover it. They went out of their way to encourage gerrymandering in the applications, which included the ability to include covered territory as long as the total number of already covered households was under 50% (which it is in this case as it's been explained to us). Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Yes, It definateately IS appropriate to attempt to BLOCK bad applications. The NTIA/RUS has no way to know if an applcation is innapproriate or in conflict of interest if we dont tell them. Quite honestly, the applicant may not know it is in conflict of interest without telling them. I specifically hate applacation that just selected 1 HUGE contiguous area. The reason is, they did't take the time that they should ahve to look down to the census block level to determine what blocks really are and aren't underserved areas. If anything it is the LARGE AREA applicants that are attempting to scam the system, to get grant money for served areas, with the hope no one will protest it. There is nothing wrong with competition. But this grant is NOT creating competition. It is giving the applicant a SUPER HUGE advantage over any other pre-existing provider in the area, and that is anti-American,and anti-fair-competition in my mind. To give a new provider a free network, and the existing provider no funds, is a disaster plan to put pre-existing businesses out of business, and to risk throwing away the much investment made by those original entreprenures. What I recommend is that people diligently protest, but with fact, and suggested resolution. The goal should NOT to prevent the party from gaining a grant to serve truely underserved/unserved areas, but to instead incourage NTIA/RUS to force the applicant to revise its applicant to remedy the conflict of Interest. Also note that once an area gets a grant, it very possible that NTIA/RUS may never give another grant to that same area. When this is done at the Census Block level it is no problem, because applicants can narrow down to each area that they serve and dont serve. But when someone lists an ENTIRE County, it risks that future legitimate application for needy census blocks will be denied because of the area being recorded as already served by a grant applicant. Is it right for an Entire county to be given to a new provider? Remember applicants are required to serve
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Chuck, I'm reading from bottom up, and realize in this Email you made some good points here that may adequately counter my thought from my last post. This is all good information, to understand what is and isn't approrpiate ways to protest, and when appropriate. I agree that NTIA/RUS is bound by law, specifically to not allow one applicant to inappropriately sway the judgement for another's application consideration. The purpose in these laws is to prevent preferencial treatment, and allow for a fair evaluation process. But NTIA/RUS did in fact give the public a method to make comments. Even the MAPs have a comment button, for early stage comments to be able to immediately be made. We cant forget that NTIA grants are subjective, and do not have a clear evaluation standard to measure applications like RUS applications do. Decission makers will make decissions based on what they perceive, which will be based on input they are exposed to, whether they intentially mean to consider it or not. And it will be very hard to prove when a decission maker used outside influence to sway their judgement. There will also be several stages of different decission makers, that might be influenced. I also think its possible to submit a defense regarding underserved, with incomplete information, without the basis being one's own coverage or application. For example, it could be stated... The application covers an area where there are X number of providers, and from our experience have found very few people unserved, did the applicant submit data referencing the coverage and subscription data of companies A,B,C,D,E? If they did not, they would likely have incomplete and inaccurate information. . What this boils down to is Does a protestor need to prove 100% conclusively its case, or just enough information to create a reasonable amount of doubt, if the applicant did not have a strong case themselves? Regardless, the applicant was required to prove that their area is underserved, if teh applicant did not conclusivel do that, I believe they are just as much at risk that the protestor will get consideration. I believe NTIA/RUS WILL reach out to applicants, to avoid conflicts, even though they dont have to. For example, if a protestor makes a good case, and suggests a good resolution, why wouldn't the NTIA/RUS consider it, and bring it up to the applicant? If I were the applicant, I'd immediately revise the app, and sacrifice a small amount so I could win the large big picture amount. I recognize that NTIA/RUS has been given power to make decissions without talking to applicant, and that decission must be based on teh information the applicant provided, but NTIA/RUS reserved the right to work it out as they deem appropriate. In my opinion, at the end of the day, if there are multiple applications for the same reason, I belive they'll want to approve the application that will gain the most public approval. Its very possible that an application that serves 100% underserved areas may be looked at as more preferencial than one that serves both served and unserved areas. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I guess that will be a very relevent document, and something I need to read, as well as anyone else intending to protest an application. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're suggesting as I understood the circular. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor
Re: [WISPA] Aggregate Growth strategy for a public offering
I'm also not in favor of any deal, that forces a participant into a destiny they don't untimately ahve control of, or where they lose control of how they evaluate their local value when they reach the exit stage. For example, one subsidiary may easilly justify a return with a 1x sale, but another may easilly be able to justify a 3x sale. When all areas are lunped in as one, the sale price of teh one has to get averaged out, and those that have more value will get underpaid for their value. And when that doesn;t occur, there is always in-fighting because everyone thinks there own network is more value than the next guy's. As well, I'm never in favor of a plan that is not very clear on what the poteital subsidiary gains for joining. Volume discounts rarely translates to value anywhere near the value of lossing independant control of one's company. And we all know, a subsidiary is controlless, unless the deal allows the subsidiary majority control of its portion, and able to opt out at anytime proportional to a pre-defined arangement. . For a deal to be worthy, they master Company/Buyer must commit what they are going to give. For example, most historical deals that ahve failed are made simlar to... If you make these revenue goals or subscriber counts in X time, we'll invest this amoutn of money or pay you this amount. This still firces the aquired entity to assume all teh risk. For the deal to be good it should be We commit to investing this amount of cash, and that dollar amount is given in trade for X number of shares, and that dollar amount is equivellent to the amount of cash small WISP already invested or greater, and then we all split the upside at X rate, and small WISP maintains all control until such time that the master corp makes a contribution greater than the small WISP, and WISP may opt to accept or deny further investment from Master Corp. I can do volume buying in coops without compromising my company ownership. I can opt into a group aquisition anytime I an ready to sell my company. But I just hate the deals that are based on Give me your compnay, and Do this for me, and in return we'll give this back. It makes no sense. It need to be... Give me what I need that I dont have, and risk it, and in return I'll give you this back. From what I've found Investors always expect to get back much more than can reasonably be acheived. So the small WISP never meets the goals. And thesmall WISP never gets their return. When both parties the buyer and seller, both assume adequate risk and adeqaute contribution, and adequate percent of upside, there becomes a very good basis for a deal. But 90% of all deals fail that basic criteria, and usually end up being the reason the effort fails. I usually find the buyer's goals are so much grander than the return the small WISP was willing to operate his business for. Deals also tend to work when it merges companies of equivellent size and value, but its near impossible to protect a joining entity, if they are not of equal scale. Their rights just get lost in the wash. The biggest flaw in deals is there is not a compelling enough reason to make one large company, other than to plan for an exit strategy sale. And most WISPs benefit more by staying in the business and living off it for a long number of years. The money is easy money once the company has reached the size of profitabilty, why does someone want to sell cheap and start over? What agregator would pay top dollar, when their goal is to resale and mark it up? The bottom line is, until finance companies leigimately are willing to take risk and invest in the companies themselves, at the stage before the company has reached scale and needs the cash, they really offer no value. 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: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Aggregate Growth strategy for a public offering I've never been a fan of selling out, no matter the terms ever for any amount of money. That's probably because I'm young and hope to own an evolution of my company 50 years from now. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:34 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; isp-wirel...@isp-wireless.com; isp-inves...@isp-investor.com; wisp-busin...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [WISPA] Aggregate Growth strategy for a public offering Aggregate Growth strategy for a public offering What many think is the holy grail of the Broadband Wireless Internet Business is reaching the 100,000 subscriber point then selling out. There are a few companies taking the buy-out approach to reaching this goal. They are offering
