Re: [WISPA] Email, Postini, and setting up open source mail servers
I second the recommendation of Postini. I set it up last year for a multi-national that I used to work for and couldn't have asked for a better solution. There were a few false-positives tossed into the quarantine (mostly special offers from retailers and quasi-spam business consultant newsletters.) The adult content filter can also be a little restrictive so make sure you test it before enabling it site-wide. There's a per-user web-based system for users to un-quarantine false-positives or you can have it tag borderline messages and you can choose how to deal with them on your mail server. Postini was considerably better than our tweaked SpamAssassin at avoiding false-positives and false-negatives. The PI virus filtering is also very good. There were only one or two brand-new Trojans that made it through PI and were caught by our local scanners on the inbound mail server (it's important to have backup scanning.) Their back-up SMTP spooling also saved us a few bounces when our network connectivity went down. Frank was easy to work with and really knew his stuff. That made for a painless setup that took minutes. Later on we had some special needs involving automated account management that he helped me get up and running quickly. So this is more than just an ad for Postini :) here are the building blocks that I've found to work the best for an open-source mail server: - Linux or FreeBSD as the underlying OS I personally prefer FreeBSD because it isn't the Jack of all trades that Linux is. Most of you are probably more familiar with a particular Linux flavor which should work fine. - Postfix http://www.postfix.org for SMTP Sendmail is nice, but it's too complicated for most people to admin well. For me, Postfix is the best mix of stability, simple configuration, options, and concise documentation. - DBMail http://www.dbmail.org for POP3/IMAP Hands down, this is my favorite pop/imap server. It requires database knowledge because that's how it stores all messages and settings, but it is incredibly fast when you have users who want to keep tens of thousands and gigabytes of messages in their mailboxes. The Sieve server-side message filtering is really useful for sorting messages into mailboxes on the server during delivery. It's also really easy to administrate a large user base because of the native DB back-end. You can even integrate Postfix auth and spam filtering into the same DB that DBmail uses for seamless storage of login info and spam filtering settings. or - Courier http://www.courier-mta.org/imap/ for IMAP/POP3 A very nice pop3/imap mail server that is widely used, well tested and pretty easy to set up thanks to good online tutorials. - amavisd-new http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/ for spam/virus filtering Amavisd-new is a front-end for spam filters like SpamAssassin and virus scanners like ClamAV. It doesn't get everything and you'll have to adjust it as the spam climate adjusts, but it's free and a good back-up to third-party filters. Over time I've learned to keep an updated clone of the os/config drive in a safe place so when the original drive/machine fails you just pop the second drive into a spare machine, restore the data files from a backup (or sync from the other data store if it's still working) and you're off and running while you diagnose the problem with the original server. It's cheaper than redundant servers for small installations and keeps down-time to a minimum. This assumes that you have trained staff on-site to deal with the potential outage. If not, you're probably better off with online redundant servers or outsourcing the services. For larger installs, virtual server images are really useful because they allow you to separate your inbound, outbound, scanning, mailboxes and storage without having to buy 5xN servers. You simply add machines when you run low on resources in your existing pool. This is a lot more text than I originally intended to write, but hopefully someone will find it useful. Best Regards, Tony Weasler On 05/28/2008 12:19 PM, Mark Nash created: Why don't you check into Postini? Charge $1 per month per account and let them deal with it... There's a Postini reseller on this list... Frank Muto. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Getting ready to stop offering email services. Spam problem just too much for a small shop to deal with. Ross Cornett wrote: Anyone charging for email sevices? We are spending lots on email servers and Postini Services... Anyone out there charging for email and if so how is it going? Thanks Ross
[WISPA] Inmarsat launches new broadband service to Eurpoe, Africa, and Asia...
I wonder what the latency is going to be. The second article mentions a usage cost of between $4-7/MB. They state that the smallest terminals are 1kg and about half the size of a laptop. This won't be a competitor to existing broadband infrastructure, but if the latency is low enough it could provide great short-term connectivity for remote areas. - Tony 07-12-2005 [12/7/05] - Inmarsat has announced the successful launch of its Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN). The company unveiled the new service to the world in a joint press briefing with representatives of its Distribution Partners and manufacturers at its London HQ on December 7. Six years in development, BGAN is the world's first mobile communications service to provide both voice and broadband data simultaneously through a truly portable device on a global basis. It is also the first to offer guaranteed IP data rates on demand. Delivered via the Inmarsat-4 satellites - the world's most advanced commercial communications spacecraft - the service is initially available across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Following the successful launch of Inmarsat's second I-4 satellite on November 8, network coverage will be extended to North and South America from Q2, 2006. The two I-4 satellites will deliver seamless broadband coverage across 85 per cent of the world's landmass and be available to 98 per cent of the world's population. BGAN delivers broadband where other networks can't, said Michael Butler, Inmarsat's chief operating officer. It enables anyone to set up a broadband mobile office in minutes and remain fully productive - wherever they are on the planet. BGAN offers IP data speeds of up to 492kbps, with the option of guaranteed data rates up to 256kbps. The service is designed for mobile users who want dependable, secure broadband access when working in locations with an unreliable or non-existent telecoms infrastructure. [...] http://about.inmarsat.com/news/00018831.aspx Lift-off for Inmarsat's global broadband By John Walko - EE Times - (12/08/2005 5:42 AM EST) [...] The cost of transferring one megabyte of data from anywhere in the world is put at between $4 to $7, while a voice call is expected to cost under $1 a minute. [...] http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=174906190 AP story: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1382023 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] marketing
Hi Dylan, Marketing practices depend on your business model and your customers. If you can only reach a few entities, it's usually best to go directly to them with your pitch. If you want widespread publicity, more traditional channels are usually most efficient: Radio, TV, billboards, etc. If you're creative you can probably come up with ways to get into this type of media very inexpensively. Others have been successful with door-knob hangers. Obviously, your ILEC has the all the voice/data circuit information you could ever want, but I have a feeling that they will sell you their fiber routes before they sell you their customer list. You can get business records from infousa.com. Most libraries have a subscription. Check with them before using it for commercial purposes. One of the columns the data has is number of computers. It's probably not that accurate, but it may be better than nothing. The IRS does not collect property taxes, local municipalities do. Check your city's assessor's office. It looks like Spring Green farmed it out to: Krueger Appraisals, LLC/Greg Grandprey 608-837-6005. They may be able to give you the data on CD. Note that the building owner is not necessarily the business owner. - Tony On 11/30/2005 7:53 PM, Dylan Oliver created: Hi, Just wondering how you all approach marketing. At the moment I'm interested in obtaining a list of addresses of all businesses within say a 150-mile radius of Spring Green, WI. What I really want is a list of every entity leasing T1s or greater! Somehow I doubt that this information will be easy to come by. I'm willing to work at this, and am happy to rip apart / cobble together sundry databases. I heard that one could obtain property tax records from the IRS, but haven't found anything on this most promising claim. Suggestions? Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT Hard Drive Failure
Hi Brian, I've been in your situation before and I understand how bad it sucks. Fortunately, I had a week-old backup, but I did try data recovery anyway to see what they could recover. I sent it to Data Recovery Services in Dallas (http://www.datarecovery.net/). I evaluated about 5 other companies (including the leader onTrack) and decided to use them because they seemed competent when I spoke with a technician over the phone and had a pricing model that I liked. (I would not use a one-price-for-all service because they have a disincentive to attempt recovery if they think that it will cost them more than the price you paid -- and you have no way to know whether they decided not to attempt recovery or if the data was actually unrecoverable.) DRS was unable to do any recovery for the initial $99 assessment and estimated that it would take about $500 to attempt the next stage. The data wasn't worth more than a few hundred $$ so I opted to return the drive to Dell under warranty (which they accepted even after it was opened by DRS.) My drive was a little further gone than yours -- it was doing the head-park clicking when it was powered on and it would not even show up during the POST drive detection. Depending on the value of your data you may want to try and connect it to a desktop machine and try to recover the data yourself. I've done this a few times when the data wasn't that important that its loss was worth ~$300. On at least 4 occasions I was able to recover all of the data I needed. Here's what I did. This may or may not work for you (don't blame me when you create a hunk of aluminum out of your drive using these instructions :) Read all of the instructions before you begin. I'm assuming a relatively decent knowledge of PC innards and Windows. If the instructions are confusing and the information has any value (on the desktop or notebook drives,) pay someone to recover the data for you. Things you need: - Desktop PC running the same or newer OS (Windows XP is explained below) and an unused IDE controller/cable. Disconnect any devices from that IDE cable (CD drive, etc.) - Notebook to desktop IDE converter like this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/2_W0QQitemZ6825102710 - Working knowledge of the command shell xcopy utility. xcopy /? should give you a good start. Make sure you use the /c switch to continue on errors. http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/xcopy.mspx Preparation --- Be careful when handling the notebook drive. Grab it gently by the sides. Never press on the top and try not to touch the electronics on the bottom. Static electricity is also your enemy. Keep yourself and all the components at the same electrical potential by connecting them together electrically (like by using a grounding system with a wrist strap.) If any of the components are grounded then you should be too. Backup all the data on the desktop PC that you will be using. You could end up frying that drive too. Make directories called c:\nbDrive c:\nbDrive\important c:\nbDrive\all on the desktop machine and make sure that you have at least enough space free for all of the files on the failing drive times two. Write down all of the files that are important to you on the failing drive (with full path names.) Don't forget about Outlook data files, Quickbooks data files, etc. Rank them in the order of importance. This is the order that you will try to recover them. You want to minimize the spin-up/down cycles on the failing drive so power up the desktop computer with it disconnected and go into the BIOS to make sure that the Primary device on the secondary (or whatever controller you will connect your drive to) IDE controller is active and set to auto-detection. Turn on the display of POST information in the BIOS (so you can see the drives as they are being detected.) Practice going into the Windows Safe Mode selection screen by pressing F8 repeatedly just after the BIOS POST screen. When you can get to the screen 3x in a row, continue. Connecting the Devices -- Power down the desktop PC (Turn it off with a current-interrupting switch or remove the power cord. Most newer computers still have current running through many of the components when they are powered off with a soft-switch. Connect the notebook drive ADAPTER (not the drive yet) to the Primary connector on the IDE cable. Nothing should be connected to the Secondary drive connector. Connect the power to the drive adapter. You may have to remove the caddy (four screws usually on the bottom) and a wedge-shaped converter that Dell likes to use on their notebook drives first. I find that a small needle-nose pliers takes it off pretty easily without bending the pins. Pull gently on one side (1mm at a time) and then on the other until it comes off easily from the middle. Connect the notebook adapter to the notebook drive. Make sure that you match up
Re: [WISPA] NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
A modern marketing mistake created this mess. A company started to sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network access. Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would never be compelled to make good on their promise. Now, instead of admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict their customers' actions. A far better approach would be to determine what their network can handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers. If their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or leave the market. It really can be that simple. Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to choose amongst the competitors. Micro-managing the various services running on top of the network only causes the services to route around the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors. Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes. It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this issue. Time will tell: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html - Tony On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created: Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different? -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
--- MarketWatch Quote --- How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them, said Ed Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. What they would like to do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that. He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1] --/ MarketWatch Quote --- It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an alternative what are their options? Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the picture by providing service for less than their cost. - Tony [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D Original interview from Business Week (registration required): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
This is a situation where additional regulation will only help those adept at manipulating the regulators. (Additional comments inline) On 11/1/2005 10:10 PM, Tom DeReggi created: The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end user's connections, and they are going to learn what over subscription. And end users are going to kick and scream about how their service provider is ripping them off, and service is poor because the video is choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link that they are paying $30 a month to. In most cases their service provider lured them in with the hype of an Unlimited use 3Mbps connection and then told them that they can't use all of it[1]. Where else in life are we handed something and then told that we can't use it[2]? If we could prevent the providers from misleading their potential customers this problem would fade away. All of my access plans are charged for usage in some way. Most are based on monthly Gigabits allowed to pass through my network. It's easy to understand and so far I've never had a client surpass the bandwidth included in the plan. If they get close I let them know and provide them with a way to gage their usage more accurately. If usage patterns change substantially, then I lower the maximums or change the plans. If a contract is in place, nothing changes for the length of the contract. The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. [...] Over-subscription is based on a business model where your customers typically consume 1% of what you are selling them. That doesn't change the fact that you sold them 99% more than a typical customer uses. If usage patterns change, then contracts need to be updated and marketing needs to change their tune. There is no basis in law (IATNAL) for retroactively changing a contract because one side realizes that their business model was based on flawed assumptions[3]. Providers will definitely have to rethink how their products are marketed and sold. Legislating usage restrictions independent of marketing's messages to consumers is a foolish way to correct an oversight because it makes it nearly impossible for consumers to determine what exactly they are purchasing. If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different. One time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP lines. [...] This is yet another example why it should be illegal to advertise 'unlimited' when that is clearly not the case. Unlimited has a very specific meaning in the English language and it doesn't include the possibility for restrictions. While the fine print of your contract probably told you that it wasn't acceptable to actually use what you were sold, the marketing messages certainly didn't. This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because marketing has to over state the capabilities of the network. [...] Marketing has absolutely no reason to overstate anything if we have a competent oversight mechanism in place to prevent companies from misleading consumers about the products that they are selling. I think that a much better solution to this problem would be to force all companies to be completely transparent about their services and provide consumers with a simple way to accurately compare similar items. For example, if I were selling 3Mb/384kb DSL I would have to state that the average available bandwidth for my customers last month was 1.2Mb/150kb, average packet loss was 5%, latency was an average of 100ms across the network and you are limited to continuous bandwidth of 512kb/30kb and daily restrictions of 300MBytes of traffic[4]. This type of information would allow consumers to make an informed choice instead of blindly choosing the $14.95 (plus $40 for the phone line that they don't tell you about) 3Mb DSL that can barely move 256kb/s of information in either direction. Yes, I know that this is difficult to implement and to enforce, but we would be much better off if we put our government's resources into this instead of having them pretend to protect consumers by compelling megacompanies to wait three years before they begin to pillage the industry. Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the costs, or the quality goes to crap. I'd hate it if broadband stuped to the low level of PC hardware and electronics. I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years without a hickup. Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year. Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, its rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd durability forced right out of the equation. I completely disagree. Laws
Re: [WISPA] Will this bother WISPs?
It looks like I'm about 75ms rtt away from you and at ~1mbps... not bad for a jaunt through WCG's network which adds about 70ms to the trip. My local outgoing connection was 100mbps to AS4323. - Tony On 10/27/2005 5:08 PM, George created: my test site: http://www.oregonfast.net/speedtest/ George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3
On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement. http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint-Verio-Cogent, but not an ATT-Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent to/from L3's network. The de-peering was consistent with the peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to http://status.cogentco.com/ It stated that, but it is not in actuallity. So why would Cogent lie about something that makes them look bad on their own public web site? Many SFI contracts allow for termination without cause given enough notice and it is reasonable to assume that this one included that type of language. According to conjecture on NANOG, Cogent was given notice 40 days before the disconnect. In the absence of more reliable information I don't have any reason to assume otherwise. Current NANOG consensus (whatever that's worth) is that both companies are equally responsible for correcting their reachability issues, but L3 initiated the de-peering process. Agreed. UNLESS Level3 is actually blocking IPs that were assigned via Cogent apposed to just blocking routes or connections. Unfortuneately I am not in a possition to prove wether our IPs are blocked because we are still single homed with Cogent. Cogent has so many peers that could transmit our data via alternate paths, and the amount of traffic on our network going to level 3 is so little,
Re: [WISPA] For those who have commented - Way to go!
Mine was also removed. I think that it was because in my first filing I didn't check the 'late-filed' box and I didn't change it from COMMENT to STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD. The moral of the story is: keep a copy of anything that you send to the government. Fortunately, I did and re-submitted it with the correct information. Thanks for the heads-up, George! Everyone who thought they filed should check to see if your filing is still there: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_listid_proceeding=04-186start=1end=2000first_time=N - Tony P.S. I just noticed that most of the other filings after 1/1/05 are marked as Document Type: NOTICE and not STATEMENT or STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD Is it possible that statements are being erased as well? I filed one copy as a STATEMENT and another as a STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD and both have identical information in the search results. Should we be filing notices instead? On 10/4/2005 10:29 AM, George created: Funny thing is I filled this one out. I could have sworn there was like 295 responses the next day after we sent this to the various lists and now there is only 242 responses and my response can not be found. Anyone else notice this and does anyone else see their response missing? George John Scrivner wrote: I just wanted to say thank you to all who are sending a clear message to the new FCC about the stalled ruling for access to unused television channel space. Your messages are going to be heard. 04-186 is key to the future growth of our industry. We face huge opposition from the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) who do not want anyone else playing in their sandbox. If you have not already told the FCC that you need those unused television channels to help grow your business and serve those hard to reach customers then please do so now. Here are the instructions once again: GO RIGHT NOW TO: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi A from will appear magically in your web browser. Fill in the blanks with your contact information. Use the guide below for specific lines to help you with items you may not know how to fill in correctly. 1) Where it says Proceeding type in 04-186 2) For the Mail Correspondence to line click on Name. 4) and 5) Leave Blank 11) Check Late Filed check box. 12) Select the drop down for Statement for the Record The other lines not listed above are things like your name which I will assume you guys have covered. :-) Then type your comments about why you need those TV channels for broadband. Give good reasons and do not argue with the FCC. Just tell them why you need the channels. Use good grammar, use correct spelling, be as good a writer as you can even if it is only one sentence. I want to see 500 comments from the WISP industry on this NPRM over the next 5 days. Let's bury them in so many comments in support of this NPRM that the FCC cannot deny us this ruling. Thanks guys, Scriv PS. I am not on any other list servers so feel free to pass this on if you are. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those who have commented - Way to go!
Maybe their comment retrieval system is broken. I manually edited the link that I sent because when you click on their view all button, it puts the number of records that it is aware of here: start=1end=###records### That effectively limits the query to this number of records. Since I assumed that more records would be added by the time people clicked the link, I changed this number to 2000. That's why all of the comments are displaying. I assume that this is because the method they use to calculate how many records result from the search is broken. It could also be a hack to only show certain records when you click 'all records.' Either way it's a poor design and should be changed. - Tony On 10/4/2005 1:24 PM, George created: Ok something wacky is going on. Now when I look I see 349 responses and mine is there: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_listid_proceeding=04-186 George Tony Weasler wrote: Mine was also removed. I think that it was because in my first filing I didn't check the 'late-filed' box and I didn't change it from COMMENT to STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD. The moral of the story is: keep a copy of anything that you send to the government. Fortunately, I did and re-submitted it with the correct information. Thanks for the heads-up, George! Everyone who thought they filed should check to see if your filing is still there: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_listid_proceeding=04-186start=1end=2000first_time=N - Tony P.S. I just noticed that most of the other filings after 1/1/05 are marked as Document Type: NOTICE and not STATEMENT or STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD Is it possible that statements are being erased as well? I filed one copy as a STATEMENT and another as a STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD and both have identical information in the search results. Should we be filing notices instead? On 10/4/2005 10:29 AM, George created: Funny thing is I filled this one out. I could have sworn there was like 295 responses the next day after we sent this to the various lists and now there is only 242 responses and my response can not be found. Anyone else notice this and does anyone else see their response missing? George John Scrivner wrote: I just wanted to say thank you to all who are sending a clear message to the new FCC about the stalled ruling for access to unused television channel space. Your messages are going to be heard. 04-186 is key to the future growth of our industry. We face huge opposition from the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) who do not want anyone else playing in their sandbox. If you have not already told the FCC that you need those unused television channels to help grow your business and serve those hard to reach customers then please do so now. Here are the instructions once again: GO RIGHT NOW TO: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi A from will appear magically in your web browser. Fill in the blanks with your contact information. Use the guide below for specific lines to help you with items you may not know how to fill in correctly. 1) Where it says Proceeding type in 04-186 2) For the Mail Correspondence to line click on Name. 4) and 5) Leave Blank 11) Check Late Filed check box. 12) Select the drop down for Statement for the Record The other lines not listed above are things like your name which I will assume you guys have covered. :-) Then type your comments about why you need those TV channels for broadband. Give good reasons and do not argue with the FCC. Just tell them why you need the channels. Use good grammar, use correct spelling, be as good a writer as you can even if it is only one sentence. I want to see 500 comments from the WISP industry on this NPRM over the next 5 days. Let's bury them in so many comments in support of this NPRM that the FCC cannot deny us this ruling. Thanks guys, Scriv PS. I am not on any other list servers so feel free to pass this on if you are. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Why ILEC regulation is different from Cable and WISP regulation... WAS: Re: FCC DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
Charles, Given your position on this issue, I have to believe that your comments are partially tongue-in-cheek. The telcos have had a government-mandated monopoly for over 50 years where they were allowed to collect monopolistic profits to build the grand network that they possess today. They own their cable plants as a direct result of the money that the public contributed (and continue to contribute in most areas) to them; not because they were one of the competitors offering a top-notch service. The ILECs continue to control last-mile access to consumers not because it is impossible for competitors to mirror their connectivity, but because it is cost-prohibitive to build that infrastructure when the expected gross return hovers around $300/year [1]. ILECs aren't comparable to cable providers for three reasons: 1) cable providers generally built their networks from capitol generated from their operations without financial assistance from the government and were not granted taxation authority to subsidize network construction a la USF; 2) Cable providers' services have not been a nearly required utility for the past 50 years. 3) Cable providers have cost-analogous competition in virtually every market from Satellite based television providers, video rental stores, online information services, etc. ILECs aren't comparable to WISPs for the same reasons above and for these additional reasons: 1) WISPs for the most part haven't had any assistance from the public sector that wasn't available to any other business at the time; 2) WISPs could have a viable competitor enter their market at any time for a relatively low start-up cost. The only potentially limiting factor is tower locations and as many of you know, if one municipality rejects you, you just beam it in from outside the town [2]; 3) Most WISPs have little power to eliminate competition by undercharging because they don't have the ability to generate monopolistic profits from other operations. guestimation The ILECs are deathly afraid that the government will not allow them to exclusively exploit their monopoly-gained infrastructure because they know that their operation is so incredibly inefficient and out-dated that they can't compete with other carriers even when they are on slightly-elevated ground. If $14.95/month business 1.5MB DSL isn't desperate dumping to eliminate competition, I don't know what is. They couldn't do this without their monopoly phone line revenue from the past 75 years. How much do they charge for a T-1? $700/month? Is it really that much different? /guestimation Allowing ILECs to prevent competitors from using their newly-built infrastructure in 2004 was a shaky proposition because they usually possess the ability to build that infrastructure as a direct result of their previous monopoly. Allowing ILECs to prevent others from using their existing infrastructure that was paid for as a direct result of their monopoly amounts to nothing less than government corporate welfare which will lead to fewer choices for consumers [3] and higher prices [4] for the services that they have the privilege of ordering from the duopoly. - Tony P.S. Anyone want to bid on this with me? Oh, you don't have enough capital? I can't imagine why... http://news.com.com/2061-10800_3-5819312.html [1] Assuming $50/month revenue and a 50% chance that they choose a competitor. Yes, I know that we can bundle services to get this number to $100 or more, but that generally hasn't happened and it's simpler to just talk about Internet-based services. Additionally, the _net_ return from an individual consumer probably hovers around $200/year. Can you even build wireless connectivity for this kind of return while running the inefficient operations that the ILECs have? [2] Maybe this part of WISP operations should be regulated. I can see some benefit to having an equal-access-to-towers regulation that covers all structures in an economically- or politically-limited tower environment. [3] Most ISPs rely on ILEC connectivity for either last-mile access to their customers or for their interconnectivity to the Internet. If the ILECs are allowed to discontinue or artificially inflate the cost of these services we will see a similar loss-of-competition that occurred three years ago with competing DSL providers. [4] They will probably look lower though. I am amazed by how foolish most consumers act. Many actually believe that $14.95/month DSL + $50/month (required) phone line is a better deal than $35/month Internet and $25/month (optional) phone line. Maybe a consistent pricing system is a better way for government to foster broadband development. On 8/4/2005 12:07 PM, Charles Wu created: Here's the issue If you vote to regulate the bells, then you (as WISPs) must also be ready to ultimately submit yourself (or at least your facilities based network infrastructure) to regulation sometime in the near future - to requote
