Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
The whole argument is scale. You've already agreed that Canopy wins by scale. I don't disagree with any other statements said below, that isn't my point. And if you want to go the 5GHz route comparison, it should be only fair to use the 430 equipment... because you are using the new UBNT equipment in your basis. Now you can get much more aggregate throughput at up to 40MBps. And I don't know of many people buying non-advantage AP's since the cost difference is rather minimal. All of my AP's are Advantage. It is an Advantage AP getting that distance and he is connected in 2x mode with -66 on both sides. Cyclone 120 sectors work great, and so do RF Engineering's reflectors. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Show me the day that a UBNT product can have 160+ clients connected to it with sub 10ms ping times to them all. I cant. Canopy wins that one, atleast in PtMP mode. (Tenant building is different story, where we have a few CPEs to AP, but a lot of customers behind each CPE). If a super cell site design is needed, thats where Canopy and Trango shine. The Trango is calls because the capacity sucks. I dont agree with that, considering Trango has more capacity (9mbps) than a non-advantage basic Canopy AP (7mb aggregate, but less each way when a fixed ratio in each direction is configured, required for syncing). Obviously, Advantage series Canopy has more capacity, if the shorter range that product requires is acceptable for the coverage footprint. 2. Range wise, we have Moto clients 18 miles out. MikroTik/UBNT, we had them at 22 miles out. Those are extremes for us, so I don't see how range is an issue...unless you are working with 15+ mile customers for the majority...again, most of us are not. Antenna wise, there are available products from LMG to max out the EIRP. Again, I dont question that canopy scales better or the possibilty to get 18 mile range. But that claim is a bit misleading. We need to recognize noise floor and rain factor are also factors, that restrict range to less than the theoretical or ideal case range. Maybe in 2.4G or 900M 18 mile is typical, but not in 5.8 or 5.3. Lets use a link budget calculator and do the math... Trango 5.8Ghz AP... tx 22, ant 14, CPE 22tx, ant 25.@ 12 miles = -72 rssi. leaves 10db of fade margin, since sensitivity is -82 or so. Canopy specs are pretty close to Trango, but not sure exactly what they are, so guessing here... For Canopy 5.8Ap lets assume all the same specs, except the AP antenna only has an 8dbi int antenna. The maths says -78 rssi, and only 4.5db fade margin. Lets see what happens when we try to get 10db of fade margin equivellent to Trango, meaning -72 rssi the results are 6 miles. Exactly 1/2 the range of the Trango, with same size customer premise antenna. But do you really want to use a dish at customer sites? Lets do the math for 18 miles, and the Canopy will yield -82 rssi. Does one really want to operate a link without any fade margin? The problem gets worse with Canopy 5.3, at low power, where antenna gain is absolutely needed to get distance. A 14bi at AP and 15 SU will just barely get 2 miles with 10db of fade. 8db Canopy AP with Behive on CPE (at legal power limits) gets you 1 mile with same fade margin at the AP side. 8dbi antenna is a handicap. (again math may not be exact, if canopy has better sensitivity than written). I recognize a Canopy AP could use an external antenna, to make up for it. But there is an extra cost for that. Or a Beehive to up the CPE gain, but again a cost for that. I also recognize we were originally talking about comparing Ubiquiti to Canopy, (not trango). But the same principles apply. Sure a Canopy DSSS system will have more range than an OFDM one requiring higher modulation and worse sensitivity. But more comparable Advantage series also has half the range of a regular Canopy to keep this conversation fair. But again, with Ubiquiti I can get an AP operating at full EIRP by default, and have options for non-dish CPE units of higher gain than 8dbi. If someone looks at Canopy, I highly recommend that they consider higher gain AP antenna options. 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: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp 1. While I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, show me the day that a UBNT product can have 160+ clients connected to it with sub 10ms ping times to them all. One single AP, passing 7mb aggregate of traffic. I've had Trango, Canopy, and a
Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity
What kind of file is that? 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 Stuart Pierce Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Identity Anyone have any idea of what kind(s) of towers these may be ? Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/
Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity
Never mind, had to change the filename to a .jpg. Looks like a Pirod to me, not 100% sure though. 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 Chuck Hogg Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 2:44 AM To: spie...@avolve.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity What kind of file is that? 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 Stuart Pierce Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Identity Anyone have any idea of what kind(s) of towers these may be ? Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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] Panelists Needed for Regional Show
Being one of the oldest WISP in St. Louis, as well as the oldest WISPA member, I would be happy to accept whatever placement WISPA require of us. If you are talking about St. Louis Broadband, you are talking about us! Victoria Proffer - President/CEO StLouisBroadband.com ShowMeBroadband.com 314.974.5600 * Fax 573.747.4756 Follow us on Twitter.com @stlbroadband St. Louis WISP since 2003 SBA Certified WOSB 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. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:59 PM To: memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA General List'; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA] Panelists Needed for Regional Show I am seeking three (3) panelists for each of the tracks below. Please send me an email if you are interested. I would like to have good representation from multiple companies so don't be bashful. I'm also looking for two (2) WISPs who have a success story to tell. This is for the WISPA Regional Meeting in St. Louis on July 21st and 22nd. 10:30 - 11:30 TV White Spaces Panel TBD Intro to WiMax Panel TBD VoIP I Panel Keith Rivers - Great Auk Wireless - Tentative 11:30 - 12:30 Broadband Stimulus Panel TBD Into the Future - How to Deploy Fiber Panel TBD Improving Your WISP Marketing (Website design, online press releases, using social media, search engine optimization, etc.) TBD :30 - 2:30 3650 MHz Panel Josh Garza - Great Auk Wireless Tower Technology I Panel Getting Physical - Safety, selection, design, guying, erection, climbing, maintenance; etc.) Moderator: Jack Unger TBD Network Management Panel Moderator: Matt Larsen TBD 2:30 - 3:30 Universal Service Fund Panel -Past, Present and Future Moderator: Jon Allen or David Kaufman (Rini/Coran) TBD Tower Technology II Panel - Wireless Design - AP placement, power, coax, Cat5, lightning protection, antenna placement, grounding, etc) Moderator: Jack Unger Bob Morola - Great Auk Wireless - Tentative Email and Web Hosting Panel TBD 11:30 - 12:30 Broadband Mapping Panel: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Moderator: Matt Larsen Brian Webster [others selected by Brian Webster] 2:10 - 2:30 Principal Member Success Story #1 3:10 - 3:30 Principal Member Success Story #2 Respectively, Rick Harnish President WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
Mark, I would like to thank you for your interesting and obivously well thought out post. I am firmly of the camp that USF should be completely discontinued, and my efforts going forward will be to encourage its disbandment. The major goals of the original USF program have been completed for some time now, and the program is no longer needed. USF is providing unneeded subsidization of wireless cellular carriers, some very large corporations (CenturyLink) and many rural ILECs that take USF money and use it to warehouse spectrum and compete with WISPs. The politically correct thing to do would be to find allies for our other positions and offer to support USF reform that will be inclusive of WISPs. I have had enough experience with the paperwork, legal wrangling and political skullduggery at the state and federal levels involved in getting USF to recognize that it is almost totally incompatible with WISPs. USF is HURTING the deployment of broadband in the US by supporting the entities that have either failed to deliver broadband to many of their rural service areas (CenturyLink), have delivered broadband but are now using the funds to subsidize other activities such as spectrum warehousing (many small ILECs) or are using it to fund the buildout of cellular networks (cellphone companies) that provide awful coverage in rural areas. From a philosophical and practical standpoint, USF should be abolished. The funds left in their coffers can be used to establish a smaller, tightly focused program for schools and libraries - entities that are legitimately benefitting from USF. USF has strong support from telcos and they are great at focusing on the tiny parts of the program that are beneficial and the threat that some telcos will go under without USF support - while the vast majority of the money that comes out of USF goes to the bottom line of profitable companies with ties to the original monopoly players. It is time for a quick lesson about the economic concept of Fast Failure. One of the very best features of capitalism and the entrepeneurial environment of the United States is that a business can and should fail if it turns out to not be economically feasible. When that business fails, its resources are redistributed and another business can step in. Subsidizing a business that doesn't need subsidization, or creating a monopolistic situation through subsidization or regulation leads to inefficiencies in the system. USF is being used to support businesses that don't need the support and it creates an anti-competitive environment. I would really like to see USF disappear. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and work with a system that is hopelessly flawed and unrepairable. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 5/27/2010 3:55 AM, MDK wrote: As I write, is it 1:40 AM, I'm tired as heck, but have been mulling this question for days, and have finally taken the time to do this. First, to my self-motivated enemies who can't stand anything I say Nuts!, I'm right and I know it. Now, for the rest, who are interested in more than just shallow mockery, here's serious conversation on serious topics, and the excuse to dismiss me for those who can't bring themselves to be serious. Some comments on the strategy for opposing FCC intervention. As is highlighted below - and has been discussed at considerable length in other venues... The NBP, the regulation of internet services, and net neutrality all hinge upon a couple of rather firm anchors. As we know, the FCC lost in the courts when it attempted to simply re-write the intent of current law.The first anchor for implementation of anything is to surmount the law as it sits right now.Either by Congressional action, or by administratively bypassing it. The current administration has demonstrated in several other areas they are willing to coordinate completely bypassing the legislative process, and regulate via administrative rule. IE, agencies simply write new rules that force the intent of the administration, even if it conflicts with current law, or has no basis in law. There's considerable example and evidence of this, by the EPA and other agencies. It would be my estimate that this is the approach the FCC will try - and it is coordinated directly, but unofficially, from the White House. This approach has mixed support and resistance in Congress. Some of the Democrats would prefer this, rather than Congress taking up a controversial topic. However, it is legally iffy. And, there's a majority in Congress which is mostly Republicans and some Democrats who actually oppose the FCC attempting to simply rule by fiat. It's a turf thing, actually. Few in Congress are strongly supportive of enterprise, and the resistance is mostly about Congress objecting to the FCC usurping their role. Thus, it would seem to be a poor strategy to rely on Congressional
Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity
There are actually two there, the lighter color has the wider base and is 60' high. The darker has a smaller base but is 80-120' ( cause there are two one of of the picture ). -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 02:44:55 -0400 Never mind, had to change the filename to a .jpg. Looks like a Pirod to me, not 100% sure though. 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 Chuck Hogg Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 2:44 AM To: spie...@avolve.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity What kind of file is that? 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 Stuart Pierce Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Identity Anyone have any idea of what kind(s) of towers these may be ? Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/ Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/
Re: [WISPA] Tower Identity - Redux
It's hard to tell from the end shot. A side profile would help. The larger one looks like an old windmill tower. It's hard to tell about the smaller one. Are those cross members angled iron or round? Friendly Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Pierce Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:56 AM To: spie...@avolve.net; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tower Identity - Redux Anyone know what these towers are ? Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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] TLink45 integrated for connectorized trade?
I've got a TLink45 radio with integrated 23 dBi antennas. Anyone want to trade for a connectorized version? -- Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.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/
Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
Are you taking the M series into consideration when stating this? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 5/27/2010 4:47 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ubiquiti will not do 50+ stations. Period. You might get 25 on low bandwidth rates (2x512). On 5/27/10, finkle dinklechar...@gmail.com wrote: Yea, I will want to specialize only in businesses truthfully, when I say that I will support residential, they're going to pay business rates and I will hand pick the people if they call me.. I dont want headaches Unfortunately I do not knowingly buy Motorola brand products for personal reasons. I do want to stick to ubnt brand products but I dont know exactly how many NanoBridge M5's I could connect to a single one, so I dont want to have to end up with the entire roof covered with antenna's. The 50mbit I could offer internally with ethernet or vdsl would be great if it was symmetrical (vdsl), I want to be able to do this, just trying to figure out how much I'd sell 50/50. Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: Thought BPL was dead -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Or BPL. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremie Chismjchi...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking the same thing. Use a mini dslam on the free pairs to get Internet in the rooms. Ptp to the building and dsl to the customer. Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Robert Westrobert.w...@just- micro.com wrote: Then you could provide the access via dsl in the building. That would be the logical route to go I think. -Richard -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of finkle dinkle Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Justin, appreciate your suggestion. I've been looking around and will continue to. Josh, the gbit ptp will be done through fiber to the building, then whoever in the building wants service.. will pay set up to get set up with ethernet or fiber to my office. I know I could get enough business inside the building to cover half the cost of everything because I'm pretty sure there is a company here with quite a few T1's, overpaying and not getting what they deserve. I've always been a proponent of maxing stuff out so I will be a great benefit to the tenants. So if I'm able to set something up externally, I may be able to actually break even and profit some, I actually know I could profit but I want this to be more of a service to the people who are unable to get anything decent out here. Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net wrote: Nice introduction to the WISPA community. Make fun of the name. I even recommended this person check out WISPA from the Ubiquity forums. Anyhow, welcome. I would suggest reading through the archives for some good discussions on things. Justin -- Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Jack Ungerjun...@ask-wi.com Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:28:35 -0700 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp My first recommendation would be to legally change your name from Finkle Dinkle to something that sounds a little more business-like. I'd recommend something like Joe Smith or Bob Jones. finkle dinkle wrote: So, I've got space in a building in So. Cal with a lot of neighbors with crappy connections. In the beginning, I wanted to bring in a gig PTP from the datacenter 12 miles away... I'm not a salesman, I think with the bandwidth I have available at the DC + the of the PTP, I could've made everyone in the building happy, at least 20 tenants if I could convince them.. doubt I could. Anyway, I have potential access to the roof, I'd have to ask. Are there any laws if I want to sell service ? If I want to provide service to lets just say 50 clients (not in the building but through wireless), are there devices that dont have to rely on LOS ? I'm just trying to understand if this all went along well, how many devices would I need to mount up on the roof to support 20-50 clients externally with the devices and which devices.. I'm looking to sell the bandwidth for a relatively low price, undercut wimax and not strictly looking for profit but looking to be the point guy for other tech operations for these potential clients.. Also, to the people who have good access to bandwidth or even not.. how much are you looking at from all your cost to
Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
M Series with AirMax on is marketed to support 100 per Rocket. -- Original Message -- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:46:12 -0500 Are you taking the M series into consideration when stating this? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 5/27/2010 4:47 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ubiquiti will not do 50+ stations. Period. You might get 25 on low bandwidth rates (2x512). On 5/27/10, finkle dinklechar...@gmail.com wrote: Yea, I will want to specialize only in businesses truthfully, when I say that I will support residential, they're going to pay business rates and I will hand pick the people if they call me.. I dont want headaches Unfortunately I do not knowingly buy Motorola brand products for personal reasons. I do want to stick to ubnt brand products but I dont know exactly how many NanoBridge M5's I could connect to a single one, so I dont want to have to end up with the entire roof covered with antenna's. The 50mbit I could offer internally with ethernet or vdsl would be great if it was symmetrical (vdsl), I want to be able to do this, just trying to figure out how much I'd sell 50/50. Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: Thought BPL was dead -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Or BPL. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremie Chismjchi...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking the same thing. Use a mini dslam on the free pairs to get Internet in the rooms. Ptp to the building and dsl to the customer. Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Robert Westrobert.w...@just- micro.com wrote: Then you could provide the access via dsl in the building. That would be the logical route to go I think. -Richard -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of finkle dinkle Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Justin, appreciate your suggestion. I've been looking around and will continue to. Josh, the gbit ptp will be done through fiber to the building, then whoever in the building wants service.. will pay set up to get set up with ethernet or fiber to my office. I know I could get enough business inside the building to cover half the cost of everything because I'm pretty sure there is a company here with quite a few T1's, overpaying and not getting what they deserve. I've always been a proponent of maxing stuff out so I will be a great benefit to the tenants. So if I'm able to set something up externally, I may be able to actually break even and profit some, I actually know I could profit but I want this to be more of a service to the people who are unable to get anything decent out here. Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net wrote: Nice introduction to the WISPA community. Make fun of the name. I even recommended this person check out WISPA from the Ubiquity forums. Anyhow, welcome. I would suggest reading through the archives for some good discussions on things. Justin -- Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Jack Ungerjun...@ask-wi.com Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:28:35 -0700 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp My first recommendation would be to legally change your name from Finkle Dinkle to something that sounds a little more business-like. I'd recommend something like Joe Smith or Bob Jones. finkle dinkle wrote: So, I've got space in a building in So. Cal with a lot of neighbors with crappy connections. In the beginning, I wanted to bring in a gig PTP from the datacenter 12 miles away... I'm not a salesman, I think with the bandwidth I have available at the DC + the of the PTP, I could've made everyone in the building happy, at least 20 tenants if I could convince them.. doubt I could. Anyway, I have potential access to the roof, I'd have to ask. Are there any laws if I want to sell service ? If I want to provide service to lets just say 50 clients (not in the building but through wireless), are there devices that dont have to rely on LOS ? I'm just trying to understand if this all went along well, how many devices would I need to mount up on the roof to support 20-50 clients externally with the devices and which devices.. I'm looking to sell the bandwidth for a relatively low price,
Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
If you can do the in building DSL in multiple buildings, consider PtP wireless links among the buildings. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 5/27/2010 8:48 PM, finkle dinkle wrote: Yep, I will look and test ubnt equipment.. I'm in no rush, just learning legalities and stuff. I never thought about vdsl from the phone room, that's a great idea.. Ultimately I'd love to bring a gig ptp in there and be able to do everything that I wanted to do in the past and be able to subsidize it by offering some wireless customers heavy bandwidth, I could beat the wimax pricing from towerstream at least. I'm looking to only gain like 10 business clients using wireless. I dont want to overwhelm myself. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Chuck Hoggch...@shelbybb.com wrote: Well...you need to look at it from another standpoint. A vast majority of businesses that we are going to be signing up are either 3-6MB/s DSL or us. You can oversubscribe a 430 AP very well at those rates. And I would argue that those customers wanting more bandwidth would be better served with a PtP connection and would definitely pay for it, considering the cost of the alternative (Fiber,DS3, MetroE, etc.). 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 Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp I don't know about 50 - it totally depends on your customers' bandwidth rates. On 5/27/10, Jerry Richardsonjrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: if you are not going with moto, then the ubiquity airmax stuff would be as good a choice as any. you might get 20 business class subs per ap and you should be able to get 3 120deg sectors on the roof. you will run into self interference problems at around 20 subs per AP. unfortunately you will already be committed to the ubiquity and there is no going back. gotta rip it all out and rebuild with canopy or add more AP's in another band. compare that to 50+ subs per canopy AP and none of the self interference problems inherent in non-sync'd gear. ~Sent mobile~ On May 27, 2010, at 5:53 PM, j284...@yahoo.comj284...@yahoo.com wrote: Rocket w/matching sector Sent from my BlackBerry(r) -Original Message- From: finkle dinklechar...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:51:37 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Well, I'm not saying I want a single AP, just trying to determine which route with UBNT products would support the most per client On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Chuck Hoggch...@shelbybb.com wrote: I was thinking the same thing... I want to be business class and go the cheap-o route. By a Yugo, get Yugo quality...especially if you think 50 business customers on a single ap is going to work well in an urban area with UBNT. 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 Jerry Richardson Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Your Moto bias will cost you. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of finkle dinkle Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Yea, I will want to specialize only in businesses truthfully, when I say that I will support residential, they're going to pay business rates and I will hand pick the people if they call me.. I dont want headaches Unfortunately I do not knowingly buy Motorola brand products for personal reasons. I do want to stick to ubnt brand products but I dont know exactly how many NanoBridge M5's I could connect to a single one, so I dont want to have to end up with the entire roof covered with antenna's. The 50mbit I could offer internally with ethernet or vdsl would be great if it was symmetrical (vdsl), I want to be able to do this, just trying to figure out how much I'd sell 50/50. Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: Thought BPL was dead -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Or BPL. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jeremie Chismjchi...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking the same thing. Use a mini dslam on the free pairs to get Internet in the rooms. Ptp to the building and dsl to the
Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
Again before we compare who has the bigger Schwartz, high customer counts per AP are only relevant if you're selling small bandwidth. You cannot put 150x 15 megabit customers on a Canopy AP (you can't on UBNT either, for that matter). People have been clamoring high customer per AP densities for years, but I've found that specification to be useless because you can't simply do today's bandwidths on a system like that... especially what finkle dinkle is trying to do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 5/27/2010 10:34 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: 1. While I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, show me the day that a UBNT product can have 160+ clients connected to it with sub 10ms ping times to them all. One single AP, passing 7mb aggregate of traffic. I've had Trango, Canopy, and a huge pusher of MikroTik (same proto as UBNT). Canopy by far beats them in scale, there is no question about it. Most non-Canopy people don't want to hear it, but I started drinking the Moto Kool Aid about a year ago. My support calls of customers on Trango vs Canopy vs Mikro/UBNT is astounding. For every 50 service calls, about 8 of them are for Canopy customers, where the installer did not properly use the correct size antenna or alignment was off. The others are Mikro/UBNT problems from interference or other issues. The Trango is calls because the capacity sucks. 2. Range wise, we have Moto clients 18 miles out. MikroTik/UBNT, we had them at 22 miles out. Those are extremes for us, so I don't see how range is an issue...unless you are working with 15+ mile customers for the majority...again, most of us are not. Antenna wise, there are available products from LMG to max out the EIRP. Anyone can do those shields for any type of antenna...regardless of UBNT or Canopy. The problem is, yes you can get 40 customers on an AP...split it up into sectors and get maybe 120. Do the same on Canopy, and it's 600+ clients per site. So, if you are looking to only do 120 (with perfect 0 interference from outside sources, which is highly unlikely in his urban market)...it scales. If you want more...you get the picture. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp I am not disagreeing with the advantages of Canopy. No doubt Canopy is a quality carrier grade type system. BUT, to be fair There are other factors to consider.. 1) Syncing can be effective for spectrum reuse, and extremely useful. But, it can become less effective and sometimes can still be subject to self-interference as the nework grows, such as when the sub's distince away from towers varies drastically between sectors. The reason us that sectors can hear CPEs behinds it in some capacity, not just teh CPEs in front of it. For example, IF sector 1 has a sub at half mile, and Sector2 has sub at 10 miles. Sector2 may hear sector1's sub louder than it hears its own subscriber 10 miles away. For syncing to work optimally without self interference, all the Client's signal levels at the AP ideally should be received at similar signal strenth, so that the Front to back ratios of sector antennas is enough to isolate the two sectors. Whether that is possible may depend on the frequency range you use, and what antennas are available to easilly deploy. With Canopy C/I spec of 3db helps a lot, but the plastic case lets more noise reach the unit. We ran into this when comparingto Trango. trango only had about 7db C/I, but the thick metal case had muchbetter F?B than Canopy did, so it average out. 2) Canopies have signficantly shorter range because by default config (integrated antenna models) they use APs and SUs with lower DB antennas and wider beamwidths, so not able to operate at peak EIRP. Also note that gain by antenna has a double effect. Meaning for an AP, it increases the receives from CPEs as well as the transmits to CPEs. So a large penalty is taken if an AP has an lower DB antenna than competing products. Canopy has many different models now, and antenna design is not the same with them all, so I dont mean to stereotype the product line. In an Ubquiti AirMax solutions, they have optimally strong sector antenna options. And they have the flexibilty for a wide array of antenna choices for CPEs. That flexibility can be useful, and it is affordable to achieve. Saying that Ubiquiti wont be able to scale, and one day will need to be pulled out, is not necessarilly true. There are enhancements to beef up Ubiquiti. For example, some jsut made a nice steel antenna shield, that adds a huge amount of Front to back ratio teh
[WISPA] Short-range NLOS question
Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Fast DNS cache
FWIW This is a bind system first query with no local cache: ;; Query time: 104 msec ;; SERVER: 64.202.224.2#53(64.202.224.2) ;; WHEN: Fri May 28 09:55:51 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 95 After first query the same server has the data in cache: ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: 64.202.224.2#53(64.202.224.2) ;; WHEN: Fri May 28 09:56:16 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 95 Here's the response from a secondary server that went to the primary to get the answer before going to the root servers: ;; Query time: 18 msec ;; SERVER: 64.202.224.2#53(64.202.224.2) ;; WHEN: Fri May 28 09:58:04 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 95 104ms seems a little high for a query that is out of house. But I haven't honestly been tweaking that in a while. Marco Coelho Argon Technologies WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
I've always been pro-tax credit, based on my personal agenda. I think it incourages investment, not only helps reduce an ISP's tax burden. However, from my experience debating ARRA, I learned there can be some disadvantages of Tax Credits. The BIG disadvantage for WISPs is that it helps Large Telcos and Cable Cos and large scale VC backed companies the most. They have tons of income they'd love to have tax relief from. They also have tons of money to invest, WISPs may have less comparatively. Probaly the best way to get FIOS built out to your community, to put the local WISP out of business, is to give Verizon a healthy Tax credit to Invest there. The bottom line is large companies have cash and favorable borrowing capabilty and have no problem looking at 30 years out to gain their ROI. WISPs on the other hand tend to be more upfront cash constrainted. Even lending can be limted due to insufficient colladeral. Now I understand many business owners are better off than others in their ablty to get larger scale funding. But as projects scale larger, it becomes more of a challenge. The Large Telcos (and USF ILECs) always will have more recognized colladeral. This is one of the reasons that in ARRA lobbying that the concept of Loan assistance and Grants was preferable to lobby for. That would be more beneficial to a WISP than a tax credit on income they never had, because they never were able to fund their proposed project in the first place. The question to be asked is. Do we want to ask for tax credits, that would help WISPs a little bit, at the expense of helping our competitors a lot? If the goal is to help more American get faster broadband sooner, Tax Credits is a great idea. But if the goal is to help make sure WISPs becomes a larger part of that solution, I'm not so sure it helps us. Strategically, it would benefit WISPs if we could discourage investment from large carriers. The other thing is that Tax Credits equally rewards all spending whether it is efficent or wasteful spending. Dont we want policy that focuses rewards to those that spent more efficiently? WISP's advantage is that they have more affordable cost of deployment. One of the things I challenge today is where there is any place left on teh planet in rural America that is not cost effective to serve with wireless? With the exception of Tower costs. If line of sight can be acheived, and twoers are needed, the cost to deploy an area can skyrocket. But otherwise, even rural areas of 1 home per square mile can be afforded with Fixed Wireless. HAving a low dnsity is actually preferred. When a 2.4Ghz AP can extend 20 miles, and can only support about 20-50 homes per AP, its a perfect match for low density rural terrain. I also have no patience for thoise that say a small rurla town can survive without being a monopoly. I live in a farm town with 300 homes, 25 acre zoning minimum, most have much more land per farm.. And here are 4 WISPs in this town, and there is enough revenue for each of us, for each of us to justify keeping up operations. What it means is that we dont put all our eggs in one town. Having 25% of the market in 4 towns, is equivellent to 100% of the market to serve one. I only need 5 customers in a town for it to be profitable to serve. (again, there are exceptions to that based on tower requirements). But the answer is just to spread out farther, so one towns infrastructure can subsidize the next's. Sometimes it means diversity, where a provider might need to offer otehr services like Compueter repir or traininf along side their Broadband opperations. But that has often been the way it is in small towns, where businesses serve more than one function for its community, than its core competency. What people really mean is that Fiber is more cost effective to deploy as a monopoly. Isn't what we really need is continued awareness building that Wireless delivers what people need, and what is needed is investment in Wireless. Like the Rolling Stones said, You cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you can get what you need. The other thing is that a tax credit will decrease the fed government revenue earned from larger telcos (our competitirs), which is a huge sum of money. Wouldn't it be better if that revenue was kept, and reused for broadband programs that would help smaller providers and competitive providers? Killing off USF and giving tax credits in combined would benefit wealthy urban/suburban RBOCs and Cable Cos the most. One price advantage that WISPs have today, is that we dont have to impose that 6% USF tax today on our subscribers. Its one of the hidden charges on teh telco bill, that helps reduce how much RBOCS out price us. How many WISPs advertise, no hidden charges? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us To: WISPA General
[WISPA] Redline SUO CPE certified for upper 3.65 band
http://tinyurl.com/39qcu35 Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Short-range NLOS question
If you don¹t have LOS you can¹t overcome physics with any type of equipment. If it¹s a few hundred feet away (as in less than 300) is cat-5 an option? It sounds like the apartment complex is a stink about appearance so digging a trench might not even work. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Shaddi Hasan shad...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:48:03 -0400 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Short-range NLOS question
Hello Shaddi, We hope you find the technical guidance you seek on here and further invite you and other non-members to visit our technical forums available from wispa.org for vendor specific information. You mentioned you are on a tight budget so I wanted to quickly point out how far the $250 annual membership fee goes. Hundreds of WISP's have invested in WISPA and the payback has been nearly $90,000 in funds being spent just this year on Legislative and FCC efforts to free up more frequencies and to make rules friendly for the many independent WISP's in our industry. In addition an upcoming Regional Meeting July 21-22 in St. Louis with a very low entrance fee will help us to network and learn much more intensively over a two day session. As are a non-member we have included annual membership in the entrance fee for people who would like to join WISPA. Talk about more bang for your buck, we invite you to join our organization and perhaps your lurker could turn into a participant in our collective of making this industry better for all. If you have further questions about our organization please feel free to email me. Thanks, Forbes Mercy Promotion Committee Chair for...@wispa.org On 5/28/2010 7:48 AM, Shaddi Hasan wrote: Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Short-range NLOS question
Plenty of free advice on this list, no problem there. Two general rules are RF does not go through dirt (aka hill), period. And High frequencies like 5.x Ghz does not penetrate hard surfaces like brick and cement, and does not really penetrate anything well, so does not penetrate wood either unless very high power. If you need to make a Non-Line-of-Sight shot and shoot through a structure you are going to have to use 900Mhz. However, there are alternatives, such as reflection. OFDM's core benefit was to better accept multi-path reflections to enable a combined signal without interference. It accomplishes this by having a larger time window to allow for all reflected signals of the same data to arrive. If there are other tall building to the side of the building blocking you, with enough gap between them, you may be able to bounce the siganl off of one of them to reach the desired building. However, the first thing I'd question is why you'd try this in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to just mount on top of the taller building? That would be a relay site. The tall building would have two radios, each with a panel antenna, one looking down to the shorter buildings in the valley, and one looking to the remote building that will have the gateway to the alternate Internet provider backbone. There is no replacement for gaining a good hassle-free Line-of-Sight connection, if there is a way to accomplish it. Radios are inexpesnive, support afterwords may not be. Where I can understand compromises that may need to be had along the distribution between all the buildings, but its generally not good practice to compromise on a head end critical link that feeds all the others. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Shaddi Hasan shad...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Short-range NLOS question
Ethernet over power lines? Greg On May 28, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Justin Wilson wrote: If you don’t have LOS you can’t overcome physics with any type of equipment. If it’s a few hundred feet away (as in less than 300) is cat-5 an option? It sounds like the apartment complex is a stink about appearance so digging a trench might not even work. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting – Tower Climbing – Network Support From: Shaddi Hasan shad...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:48:03 -0400 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
You are correct. I retract that statement. I have an AirMax AP up servicing business customers in a sector where I would not be adding more AP's in the same band. works great, latency is low, speed is high, customers are happy. this AP makes about $1000 a month -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:12 -0400, Jerry Richardson wrote: Your Moto bias will cost you. Here we go againthis is not NECESSARILY true. Let's not start this whole thread again...ok? -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
Nope. But I sure do miss Rickeesha. :( -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Is that what you told Rickeesha? :) On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: That's why I had to change my name from Richard Head. That last name was a curse on this list. Now I have a last name that gets me more respect. -Richard Face -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp Nice introduction to the WISPA community. Make fun of the name. I even recommended this person check out WISPA from the Ubiquity forums. Anyhow, welcome. I would suggest reading through the archives for some good discussions on things. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:28:35 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp My first recommendation would be to legally change your name from Finkle Dinkle to something that sounds a little more business-like. I'd recommend something like Joe Smith or Bob Jones. finkle dinkle wrote: So, I've got space in a building in So. Cal with a lot of neighbors with crappy connections. In the beginning, I wanted to bring in a gig PTP from the datacenter 12 miles away... I'm not a salesman, I think with the bandwidth I have available at the DC + the of the PTP, I could've made everyone in the building happy, at least 20 tenants if I could convince them.. doubt I could. Anyway, I have potential access to the roof, I'd have to ask. Are there any laws if I want to sell service ? If I want to provide service to lets just say 50 clients (not in the building but through wireless), are there devices that dont have to rely on LOS ? I'm just trying to understand if this all went along well, how many devices would I need to mount up on the roof to support 20-50 clients externally with the devices and which devices.. I'm looking to sell the bandwidth for a relatively low price, undercut wimax and not strictly looking for profit but looking to be the point guy for other tech operations for these potential clients.. Also, to the people who have good access to bandwidth or even not.. how much are you looking at from all your cost to what you actually charge (not including administrative) but lets assume your bandwidth costs are 8k/month with the point to point to the datacenter + 1000mbit commit. I know I could do better but what are we looking at here, if the total cost to get the bandwidth, less the equipment to my office building at 8 bux a meg, how much should I be selling it ? any recommendations ? I do not want to be a company like towerstream where I sell 8 megs for 800/MRC, i'm looking to charge more like 25 bux per meg... Is my model right or wrong ? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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
Re: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question
And think like the ham radio operators do in condo environments - conceal gear in everyday objects which pass condo association muster like flower pots, flag poles, bird feeders, fake bathroom roof vents etc. Greg On May 28, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Plenty of free advice on this list, no problem there. Two general rules are RF does not go through dirt (aka hill), period. And High frequencies like 5.x Ghz does not penetrate hard surfaces like brick and cement, and does not really penetrate anything well, so does not penetrate wood either unless very high power. If you need to make a Non-Line-of-Sight shot and shoot through a structure you are going to have to use 900Mhz. However, there are alternatives, such as reflection. OFDM's core benefit was to better accept multi-path reflections to enable a combined signal without interference. It accomplishes this by having a larger time window to allow for all reflected signals of the same data to arrive. If there are other tall building to the side of the building blocking you, with enough gap between them, you may be able to bounce the siganl off of one of them to reach the desired building. However, the first thing I'd question is why you'd try this in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to just mount on top of the taller building? That would be a relay site. The tall building would have two radios, each with a panel antenna, one looking down to the shorter buildings in the valley, and one looking to the remote building that will have the gateway to the alternate Internet provider backbone. There is no replacement for gaining a good hassle-free Line-of-Sight connection, if there is a way to accomplish it. Radios are inexpesnive, support afterwords may not be. Where I can understand compromises that may need to be had along the distribution between all the buildings, but its generally not good practice to compromise on a head end critical link that feeds all the others. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Shaddi Hasan shad...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:48 AM Subject: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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:
[WISPA] Stupid MT tricks
OK, yeah, I'm frustrated I'm sitting here beside a nice shiny new Dell Power Edge T310 server. Nothing fancy. Just a good processor, lots of memory, sata, gigE, etc. Just what a person would normally expect in a new server. 4.9 will load but doesn't see ANY of the ethernet ports. 5.x beta won't install from an ISO image. It locks up something in the machine, even the numlock quits working. How long has PCIE, sata etc. been in common use nowadays??? How can a high tech company with tools that do as many amazing things as MT NOT work with years old but newer technology? It's a crying shame that Imagestream hasn't come up with a good gui and an interface as easy to use as MT's. sigh Anyone need a brand new $1,600 server with a 500gig sata drive and 8 gig DOM in it? Oh yeah, here's the funniest part of this. I ordered a SATA DOM for this box and they shipped it with an IDE power cord! eye roll I feel like Marvin the Martian. Delays, Delays. http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/delays.wav http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/drawing.wav Have a great weekend all! 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] Stupid MT tricks
Have you tried a netinstall? This always solves my issues when I run into issues with x86 hardware. -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:10:55 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Stupid MT tricks OK, yeah, I'm frustrated I'm sitting here beside a nice shiny new Dell Power Edge T310 server. Nothing fancy. Just a good processor, lots of memory, sata, gigE, etc. Just what a person would normally expect in a new server. 4.9 will load but doesn't see ANY of the ethernet ports. 5.x beta won't install from an ISO image. It locks up something in the machine, even the numlock quits working. How long has PCIE, sata etc. been in common use nowadays??? How can a high tech company with tools that do as many amazing things as MT NOT work with years old but newer technology? It's a crying shame that Imagestream hasn't come up with a good gui and an interface as easy to use as MT's. sigh Anyone need a brand new $1,600 server with a 500gig sata drive and 8 gig DOM in it? Oh yeah, here's the funniest part of this. I ordered a SATA DOM for this box and they shipped it with an IDE power cord! eye roll I feel like Marvin the Martian. Delays, Delays. http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/delays.wav http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/drawing.wav Have a great weekend all! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
My favorite is those damn PS3 customers. If the PS3 servers sense even one time-out or several pings above what they want the customer calls screaming that we are at fault. It's forced us to follow our network back until we found a switch causing the intermittent time-outs (about one every 15 minutes or so). I guess I should be thankful that they caused me to diagnose our network finding a potential problem but I have to admit my first feeling is why don't you get a damn job instead of playing games all day... OK so that thought isn't so realistic but if Sony had a better software solution I wouldn't get these daily calls for my customers $59/month account, heck almost no other console gives me the heartache that PS3 does. On 5/27/2010 10:26 AM, Bret Clark wrote: On 05/27/2010 01:23 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: and the customer who does perpetual speed tests and as soon as he doesn't get his speed ( even though he knows it is best effort and not dedicated) wants you to come out. Wait a minute we have that customer too...so he's using you for a connection as well ;)! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Stupid MT tricks
Been there, done that. Did you check the NIC's against MT's hardware compatability list before ordering? -original message- Subject: [WISPA] Stupid MT tricks From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Date: 28/05/2010 5:09 pm OK, yeah, I'm frustrated I'm sitting here beside a nice shiny new Dell Power Edge T310 server. Nothing fancy. Just a good processor, lots of memory, sata, gigE, etc. Just what a person would normally expect in a new server. 4.9 will load but doesn't see ANY of the ethernet ports. 5.x beta won't install from an ISO image. It locks up something in the machine, even the numlock quits working. How long has PCIE, sata etc. been in common use nowadays??? How can a high tech company with tools that do as many amazing things as MT NOT work with years old but newer technology? It's a crying shame that Imagestream hasn't come up with a good gui and an interface as easy to use as MT's. sigh Anyone need a brand new $1,600 server with a 500gig sata drive and 8 gig DOM in it? Oh yeah, here's the funniest part of this. I ordered a SATA DOM for this box and they shipped it with an IDE power cord! eye roll I feel like Marvin the Martian. Delays, Delays. http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/delays.wav http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/drawing.wav Have a great weekend all! 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/ -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Nationwide POTs Aggregator
We use a company called Purespeed for our dialup. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nationwide POTs Aggregator On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 19:45 -0500, Charles Wu wrote: Does such a thing exist? If it doesn't, will we see a new CLEC from CTI? :-) Seriously, I can't imagine that such a thing isn't possible. I am not certain, but I'd imagine that all those DSL aggregators who can resell services over copper they don't own could do something like this. It MAY even be possible to do over a VOiP option, but not sure you want to do it that way (due to the unreliability). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Nationwide POTs Aggregator
We were able to use my Netsapiens adapter with a fax machine lately. I'm told it worked perfectly. marlon - Original Message - From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nationwide POTs Aggregator Looking to solve a faxing issue (that's being caused by VoIP) -- so probably don't want a VoIP solution =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nationwide POTs Aggregator On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 19:45 -0500, Charles Wu wrote: Does such a thing exist? If it doesn't, will we see a new CLEC from CTI? :-) Seriously, I can't imagine that such a thing isn't possible. I am not certain, but I'd imagine that all those DSL aggregators who can resell services over copper they don't own could do something like this. It MAY even be possible to do over a VOiP option, but not sure you want to do it that way (due to the unreliability). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Stupid MT tricks
I think the embedded NICs are Broadcom and expansion NICs are Intel in Dell's world. Could be wrong on that though, it's been some time. On 5/28/10, Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com wrote: Been there, done that. Did you check the NIC's against MT's hardware compatability list before ordering? -original message- Subject: [WISPA] Stupid MT tricks From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Date: 28/05/2010 5:09 pm OK, yeah, I'm frustrated I'm sitting here beside a nice shiny new Dell Power Edge T310 server. Nothing fancy. Just a good processor, lots of memory, sata, gigE, etc. Just what a person would normally expect in a new server. 4.9 will load but doesn't see ANY of the ethernet ports. 5.x beta won't install from an ISO image. It locks up something in the machine, even the numlock quits working. How long has PCIE, sata etc. been in common use nowadays??? How can a high tech company with tools that do as many amazing things as MT NOT work with years old but newer technology? It's a crying shame that Imagestream hasn't come up with a good gui and an interface as easy to use as MT's. sigh Anyone need a brand new $1,600 server with a 500gig sata drive and 8 gig DOM in it? Oh yeah, here's the funniest part of this. I ordered a SATA DOM for this box and they shipped it with an IDE power cord! eye roll I feel like Marvin the Martian. Delays, Delays. http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/delays.wav http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/drawing.wav Have a great weekend all! 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/ -- 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
That's odd...every other mention of consoles includes Xbox problems and wishing it was as problem free as the PS3 and Wii. On 5/28/10, Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com wrote: My favorite is those damn PS3 customers. If the PS3 servers sense even one time-out or several pings above what they want the customer calls screaming that we are at fault. It's forced us to follow our network back until we found a switch causing the intermittent time-outs (about one every 15 minutes or so). I guess I should be thankful that they caused me to diagnose our network finding a potential problem but I have to admit my first feeling is why don't you get a damn job instead of playing games all day... OK so that thought isn't so realistic but if Sony had a better software solution I wouldn't get these daily calls for my customers $59/month account, heck almost no other console gives me the heartache that PS3 does. On 5/27/2010 10:26 AM, Bret Clark wrote: On 05/27/2010 01:23 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: and the customer who does perpetual speed tests and as soon as he doesn't get his speed ( even though he knows it is best effort and not dedicated) wants you to come out. Wait a minute we have that customer too...so he's using you for a connection as well ;)! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
How ridiculous is this thread? Why wouldn't Jack have some fun with your 'title' name since its obviously false. And for those who act like we're insulting a new member we're not stupid, his name is Jason Philbrook not dinkle whatever and if he chooses to use a goofy name he opens himself up for a little teasing back, that's how it works in the 'we don't all have a thin skin' world. If Jason wants to be a member its because, as he's already shown in his interest in weening knowledge from our membership, there are a lot of reasons to join WISPA. This feigned sense of taking offense over something that's not even real is boring and unnecessary, move on to a more humorous Friday thread instead of trying to make Jack feel bad. On 5/27/2010 9:43 AM, finkle dinkle wrote: Thanks for the suggestion about changing my name, I'll be sure to download the forms, submit them and change my name to Jack Ungerton. Well, I know the capabilities of a NanoBridge M5 now as I've tested it for a friend but it was done for two buildings around 500 feet in distance. Is something as basic as a NanoBridge M5 doable or if you start getting into the commercial sector, do you start requiring better equipment ? I haven't been on a roof in a long time so I dont clearly remember what is visible from the top but I'm sure it's a lot. I just want to be able to provide decent pricing to the people and businesses here with symmetrical bandwidth. I haven't had time to figure out administrative costs and how I could provide support if there are any issues though. I would love to have something set up to provide service for a radius of a few miles but I'm not sure that's something I should be messing with. I pretty much am curious on if I were to sell a few hundred megs, what type of devices and how many devices at what cost will it be ? Thanks On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Randy Cosbydco...@infowest.com wrote: Sheesh you guys, you're scaring him AND making fun of his name. Welcome to the club :) -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc 435-674-0165 x 2010 http://www.infowest.com/ As knowledge increases, the verdict of yesterday must be reversed today, and in the long run the most positive authority is the least to be trusted. - Hugh Nibley WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Becoming a Wisp
Xbox live has figured out how to deal with this. I was playing online with a crappy 900mhz connection at 50%ccq and still could play. PS3 would never be able to handle that amount of poor quality. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:15:16 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp My favorite is those damn PS3 customers. If the PS3 servers sense even one time-out or several pings above what they want the customer calls screaming that we are at fault. It's forced us to follow our network back until we found a switch causing the intermittent time-outs (about one every 15 minutes or so). I guess I should be thankful that they caused me to diagnose our network finding a potential problem but I have to admit my first feeling is why don't you get a damn job instead of playing games all day... OK so that thought isn't so realistic but if Sony had a better software solution I wouldn't get these daily calls for my customers $59/month account, heck almost no other console gives me the heartache that PS3 does. On 5/27/2010 10:26 AM, Bret Clark wrote: On 05/27/2010 01:23 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: and the customer who does perpetual speed tests and as soon as he doesn't get his speed ( even though he knows it is best effort and not dedicated) wants you to come out. Wait a minute we have that customer too...so he's using you for a connection as well ;)! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Fast DNS cache
I'm also looking for something better here. We have our own dns servers. Who's good at configuring them to run as fast as possible from the customer's perspective? thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I am setting up some new DNS servers and I'd like to figure out what the quickest caching DNS server is. Google keeps telling me to go to Open DNS. I'm not opposed to them and may use them as either primary or secondary, but I want at least one server within my own network. Recommendations? Separately, I will be setting up a resolving server for my own stuff. -- - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
Matt, Although I agree with most of what you say, specifically there are huge risks that USF will just go straight to the Cellular carriers to build out more mobile phone towers to deliver broadband. In order to win a battle to dispand USF, we have to effectively combat other's objections to that. What would you propose we respond to the following common objections 1) Alaska - Full of Icy sub-zero weather, surrounded by frozen water, very rural. Without USF subsidee not only would communications providers fail, but the people that are served would be at severe risk. These communicatiosn are absolutely necessary for healtch care and public safety. The alternative optiosn to communbicate jsut dont exist. This territory can be the most expensive and challenging to serve. Without USF, these Americans will be left out in the cold. Alaska has some very influencial senators/legislators protecting USF. 2) If a Rural Telco fails, consumers will be left without communications. Shouldn't competitive provider options be available to all homes, before the solution in place that works is dispanded. How can we be certain that Rural Telcos will be able to survive without their subsidees? To get their subsidees in the first place they likely had to prove their need, in order to qualify. Other than just self-perception, what evidence do we have to support our claim, that Rural USF recipients can survive without the continued subsidees? 3) Rural America needs better mobile phone coverage. Subsidees are needed, thats why coveratge is not there now. If USF got disbanded would it reduce the subsidees to Mobile carriers, or would it indirectly steal future funding sources WISPs? If mobile expansion funding is not gotten from USF, a fund that already exists and does not come from WISP's pcoket, where will it come from. If mobile is needed, something needs to pay for it. Will future funding opportunities and programs get redirected to mobile instead? Lets specifically look at West Virgina and BTOP/BIP. West Virginia got probably the largest grant of any ARRA recipient of about $130 million. I Personally thought it was an outrage. Most of the funds will go to pay Frontier to build fiber backbones, and Verizon to build out Mobile cellular towers and LTE. Making Verizon,the wealthiest RBOC one of the largest recipients of ARRA funds. Ironically, Verizon plled out of West Virginia as the ILEC, not to long ago. And now instead West Virginia pays them to come back to deploy mobile. This was the recommendation of the State officials, and strongly pushed from West Virginia Congressman, involved in congressional Broadband committee. The arguement was that mobile coverage in West Virgina was horrid and desperately needed. Many will argue mobile phones are more important than Broadband. Cell phones are a success stories, with 3-5 phones per household now adays. If the cellular phone tower needs to be build anyway, isn't it a better use of funds to take advantage of that infrastructure to also colocate a form of broadbnd wireless? Saying we dont want subsidees to go to mobile carriers may not get support by rural consumers nor policy makers, considering that mobile carriers also own license spectrum to deliver more sustainable operations, so they will argue. Now there is nothing more than I'd like to see is to stop subsidees to mobile phone carriers. They have more than enough revenue in urban and suburban America to self fund rural America mobility. That is something that is proveable, jsut by looking at public stock info, and the huge rate of growth the industry has had. It doesn;t need help. If the goal is to disband USF, it may be worth reaching out to NewJersey's congressmen. They are one of the largest payers into the fund, and their congressman have been very vocal about disbanding USF, and stopping the financial burden put on NewJersey residents. Any New Jersey WISP constituents on-list? What I'd like to see is tax credits go to third party investors that contribute to equalizing the industry. For example, tax credits to investors that invest in companies doing less than $10million a year in revenue. Tax credits to tower companies that colocate/lease to atleast one local WISP (such as one doing less than $10million a year with a local office). In otherwords give help to those that help companies that are looked at as higher risk. I'd like to see fed help grow an industry of competitors, not just cater to consumer demands through monopolies. What we really need to do is get Congress involved and convinced that they need to mandate support for small business, and prevent funding of any monopoly behavior, before any future funding or subsidee programs get reformed or formed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List
Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp
Yeah, I can only remember one customer ever complaining about PS3 problems, the Xbox on the other hand, we have problems with all the time - although those are mainly caused by NAT, which doesn't seem to bother the PS3. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Becoming a Wisp That's odd...every other mention of consoles includes Xbox problems and wishing it was as problem free as the PS3 and Wii. On 5/28/10, Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com wrote: My favorite is those damn PS3 customers. If the PS3 servers sense even one time-out or several pings above what they want the customer calls screaming that we are at fault. It's forced us to follow our network back until we found a switch causing the intermittent time-outs (about one every 15 minutes or so). I guess I should be thankful that they caused me to diagnose our network finding a potential problem but I have to admit my first feeling is why don't you get a damn job instead of playing games all day... OK so that thought isn't so realistic but if Sony had a better software solution I wouldn't get these daily calls for my customers $59/month account, heck almost no other console gives me the heartache that PS3 does. On 5/27/2010 10:26 AM, Bret Clark wrote: On 05/27/2010 01:23 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: and the customer who does perpetual speed tests and as soon as he doesn't get his speed ( even though he knows it is best effort and not dedicated) wants you to come out. Wait a minute we have that customer too...so he's using you for a connection as well ;)! - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. --- Winston Churchill WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Fast DNS cache
DNS tuning is pretty straightforward. One of my guy¹s is awesome at it. If you are running BIND there are quite a bit of things you can do. We are running bind in some VM¹s and they are still quite fast. The trick is do it as close to the customer as you can (duh! You say). Djbdns is tuneable to be fast as well. Most of the slowdown of DNS involves config issues. Once those are fixed you can re-compile and tune. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:33:44 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I'm also looking for something better here. We have our own dns servers. Who's good at configuring them to run as fast as possible from the customer's perspective? thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I am setting up some new DNS servers and I'd like to figure out what the quickest caching DNS server is. Google keeps telling me to go to Open DNS. I'm not opposed to them and may use them as either primary or secondary, but I want at least one server within my own network. Recommendations? Separately, I will be setting up a resolving server for my own stuff. -- - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question
Ubiquiti is coming out with some new 900MHz gear in August. Might be worth waiting for. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Short-range NLOS question Hello WISPA, I'm a lurker on this list that is interested in the WISP industry but still learning every day (a lot from you all!), so please forgive my ignorance. :) I run a small community wireless network in a low-income apartment complex; we're currently using Open-Mesh OM1Phttp://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=OM1Peq=Tp=%20's with 7dBi omnis to provide coverage to a couple hundred families in about 25 buildings. For reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and can't be changed, we may only place our mesh AP's inside resident's apartments (this is an all-volunteer operation, run on a shoestring with a small grant). We can place AP's outside on people's windows, but we have to be discreet. There's one section of the complex that we haven't been able to get coverage to. It's in a bit of a depression, so the tops of the buildings in the hollow are about even with the first floor of the ones higher up. We have a gateway for our mesh there, a CLEAR WiMax connection, that never stays up (we have another one on top of the hill that does stay up, but would that there were another WISP in our area...), so we are thinking about building a P2P link between that section of the complex and our gateways elsewhere, a few hundred feet away but blocked by part of this hill and several buildings. Because we're on such a tight budget, I wanted to solicit yall's advice before we made a purchase. We were thinking about using a a couple 5Ghz Ubiquiti NS's, but I'm not sure how well that will work given the lack of LOS. We were also thinking about looking for some inexpensive 900Mhz devices, but I'm not sure if that's overkill for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to get free consulting from you all, but if anyone has any pointers that might help us make a better decision or fix this problem they'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Shaddi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
Hi Mark, Thanks for taking the time to present your views is such a well thought out fashion. I'm learning a lot from the equally constructive discussion that has followed. You're right to infer that WISPA's official position(s) will be discussed and decided by WISPA Members. Those Members who wish to contribute to forming WISPA official policy have volunteered to participate on WISPA's Legislative and FCC Committees. As a Membership organization, it is WISPA's duty and obligation to represent the Majority views of it's Members. You are welcome at any time to join WISPA and participate on those Committees. I've witnessed first-hand the thorough debate and discussion that goes on at the Committee level. I'm sure with your excellent mind, you would be able to bring additional valuable debate and discussion to these Committees. Committee Members who are especially committed also take the time to read and digest additional opinions as well - as demonstrated by the many Committee Members who have read your comments and shared their opinions on this public list. With regard to WISPA's policy positions - these are already discussed and advocated both publicly and privately both before and after formation. The fact that many WISPA Members are willing to openly discuss their views on this public (open to non-WISPA Members) list demonstrates open advocacy even though the final positions are decided privately by Committee Members. The fact that WISPA's official positions are publicly filed with the FCC and available online as well as published on both public and private WISPA lists demonstrates that WISPA's positions are indeed open to the public. These policy positions are also written clearly; just read any of them and the clarity should be obvious. There's no need that I can see for you to wait. WISPA's positions are already public and clear. When you are ready to sign up for WISPA Membership, that door is wide open for you. Here's the link http://signup.wispa.org/. Thanks again for contributing your excellent thoughts to the discussion. jack MDK wrote: Tom, I've always assumed that the debate on this topic is going to be out of public view. What I've said is not news to anyone, it's not any secret and being proposed to WISPA publicly will change nothing, influence nothing, in terms of how anyone else chooses strategy or positions. I hope it's well debated. I hope you eventually reach a point where your policy stands at WISPA are publicly advocated and clear. I'm waiting. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: "Tom DeReggi" wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:58 PM To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband MDK, I applaud your Email. It will take some time to fully digest all the relevent points that were addressed. I dont agree with everything that you suggested, but I do agree with a signfiicant part of it. One realization that you brought up which I agree with is regarding that we will reach a time where a line will need to be drawn in the sand, and we'll need to know which side of the line we are going to be standing on. On some of these topics, playing both sides simply isn't going to be possible. I have a couple quick comments 1) Anything posted on the general list will be google indexed for the world to see. Including the apposing side. In my opinion, it is not wise to debate WISPA's strategy to combat these important issue, in that environment. For that reason, I have been disccussing NBP and TItleII reclassification topics on the member list which is only available to wispa members to read. Its also important that WISPA represent's WISPA member. When debating on an open list, its really hard for me to decipher which comments are comming from members and which are not. For example, a Verizon lobbiest could be masking themselves as a WISP, and I'd never know. I'd also like to re-engage legislative committee list, to start formulating a plan, so members list does not get saturated with policy posts. I welcome members to join legislative committe who are interested in debating this. The more members that join the committee, the bigger the change the conclusion will be a reflection of member's opinion. 2) I think much debate is needed regarding strategy for these important topics. I think its to early to ask members to vote on what our stance should be. Because there has been little debate to challenge potential stances, and many members may not yet be fully versed with all the facts, so some may make an uninformed decission, that could have results different than what they expected by taking their stance. 3) Stategy is needed. Its easy to come up with what we want. The hard part is to justify and convince policy makers to
Re: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache
Marlon, try simpledns from www.jhsoft.com tony I'm also looking for something better here. We have our own dns servers. Who's good at configuring them to run as fast as possible from the customer's perspective? thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I am setting up some new DNS servers and I'd like to figure out what the quickest caching DNS server is. Google keeps telling me to go to Open DNS. I'm not opposed to them and may use them as either primary or secondary, but I want at least one server within my own network. Recommendations? Separately, I will be setting up a resolving server for my own stuff. -- - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Redline SUO CPE certified for upper 3.65 band
Gino, I'm cross posting this over to the 3650 Members list. jack Gino Villarini wrote: http://tinyurl.com/39qcu35 Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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] WISPA's Plans for June 15 TV White Space Forum in Washington DC
I'm pleased to announce WISPA's plans for participation in the TV White Spaces Summit http://groups.sdrforum.org/p/cm/ld/fid=92 on June 15th in Washington DC. WISPA will be represented by three FCC Committee Members - Alex Phillips, Rusty Irvin and Tom DeReggi. Alex will officially participate as WISPA's representative on the Applications Focus panel where he will discuss the rural applications that WISPs have for TV White Space. Rusty paid for and donated a tabletop display area to WISPA where he and Alex and Tom will discuss WISPA and WISPA's positions with the attendees. They will be distributing information about 1) WISPA Memberhip, 2) WISPA's TVWS positions, and 3) WISPA's upcoming TDWR Database. I very much appreciate Alex's and Rusty's and Tom's help to represent WISPA at this event. Jack Unger Chair - WISPA FCC Committee -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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] Board Participation at the Regional Meeting is HIGH
I now have 5 committed registrations from the 9 Board members and 3 verbal commitments. This may very well be the FIRST event in the history of WISPA when all Board Members are present in the same place at the same time. I congratulate my fellow Board members for their hard work and commitment to WISPA. I also encourage everyone to consider attending. I'm excited at what this Regional Meeting is developing into. To Non-Members: Although the price of registration is $300 instead of the member rate of $100, you will receive a one year membership at that price. Therefore, you are joining and supporting WISPA for the next year at a $50 discount to normal pricing. This is a special for event participants only and does not apply to current memberships. If you register as a non-member, you will be asked by the Billing Dept. to fill out the membership form at http://signup.wispa.org. The Regional Meeting Registration page is http://wispaslrm.eventbrite.com/ I'm going to take some time off this weekend. I will have limited access to email. Respectfully, Rick Harnish President WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements so that there is less redlining of the more profitable portions of their license area. I think that the idea of pitting the New Jersey delegation against the Alaska delegation is fantastic. Why should people in NJ be paying for phone services in Alaska? I would like to close with an illustration of what goes on with USF. USF is attached to every access line, and looks pretty innocuous on a single line phone bill. However, when I was running a dialup ISP and we had several hundred lines coming into our system, that USF cost was in the $3000/$4000 range every month. Especially frustrating was that one of my main competitors was the unregulated subsidiary of a nearby rural ILEC that was receiving a ton of USF money, had access to low interest capital from USDA and was receiving reciprocal compensation for terminating phone calls to their ISP system. In my mind, that $4000/month was going right to them to compete with me.Their subsidiary did not receive the money directly, but it paid the salaries of their staff and generated traffic into their system to generate more money. It also allowed them to either buy or bid up the price on 700mhz spectrum for a big chunk of the state of Nebraska - and they are only deploying service in part of it. Also paid the salaries of the people on their staff that do nothing but fill out government forms and apply for grants from federal and state sources, and that money was used to compete with multiple private operators. I had to file about 40 or so broadband stimulus protests against one of the wireless carriers in our area that receives USF money because they wanted to get MORE government money to upgrade their network. That is what USF money goes to. Kill. It. Now. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 5/28/2010 10:36 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, Although I agree with most of what you say, specifically there are huge risks that USF will just go straight to the Cellular carriers to build out more mobile phone towers to deliver broadband. In order to win a battle to dispand USF, we have to effectively combat other's objections to that. What would you propose we respond to the following common objections 1) Alaska
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:39:06PM -0600, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. More simply, if they can run a massive oil pipeline (alyeska) the length of the state in 2 years across all sorts of weather environments, they can certainly run a fiber cable everywhere 30+ years later. If they can't do it by land due to frost, copy the poor african countries and tropical islands that link their towns by fiber in the sea. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. Theoretically, regulators who are supposed to be looking out for the citizens are supposed to be watching the telcos so failure can be warded off and things can work flawlessly because of their regulatory oversight. I have just argued that they are all based around expensive local switches which is how they get the USF. If they are not profitable, it's either because they are growing (such as investing in dsl to enhance their monopoly), or they are limiting profits in order to avoid taxation or rate regulation changes. (Look how long they've managed to milk reciprocal compensation in the LD business) In Maine, we had fairpoint (indy ILEC) buy out the assets of Verizon (Bell). Fairpoint's indy operations remained a separate business with separate rates. The what's the bell company named this week organzation went bankrupt. Surely the independents operations were kept separate because they knew that was a better business than buying the bell company. Incidently, the bankrupted company continues to provider service, so there is precedent that a bankrupted telco doesn't have to be a service risk to the customers. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements so that there is less redlining of the more profitable portions of their license area. I'm in a rural area where there are legitimate needs for more cellular coverage. Some funding with time limits could be useful. Timelimits would prevent it from being a wastefully used as they'd know it would have to self sustaining at some point. It would be an uphill battle against better cell coverage. The public safety implications of poor cell coverage are huge and heartwrenching propoganda if needed. Some disadvantged pregnant lady gets run off a less traveled road by a drunk driver and doesn't have the cell reception to call
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
I nominate Matt Larsen to serve on the panel for USF at the Regional Meeting! Wouldn't it be interesting if Tom was on there to? I'd go just for the debate! On 5/28/2010 12:39 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements so that there is less redlining of the more profitable portions of their license area. I think that the idea of pitting the New Jersey delegation against the Alaska delegation is fantastic. Why should people in NJ be paying for phone services in Alaska? I would like to close with an illustration of what goes on with USF. USF is attached to every access line, and looks pretty innocuous on a single line phone bill. However, when I was running a dialup ISP and we had several hundred lines coming into our system, that USF cost was in the $3000/$4000 range every month. Especially frustrating was that one of my main competitors was the unregulated subsidiary of a nearby rural ILEC that was receiving a ton of USF money, had access to low interest capital from USDA and was receiving reciprocal compensation for terminating phone calls to their ISP system. In my mind, that $4000/month was going right to them to compete with me.Their subsidiary did not receive the money directly, but it paid the salaries of their staff and generated traffic into their system to generate more money. It also allowed them to either buy or bid up the price on 700mhz spectrum for a big chunk of the state of Nebraska - and they are only deploying service in part of it. Also paid the salaries of the people on their staff that do nothing but fill out government forms and apply for grants from federal and state sources, and that money was used to compete with multiple private operators. I had to file about 40 or so broadband stimulus protests against one of the wireless carriers in our area that receives USF money because they wanted to get MORE government money to upgrade their network. That is what USF money goes to. Kill. It. Now. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 5/28/2010 10:36 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt, Although I agree with most of what you say, specifically there are huge risks that USF will just go straight to the Cellular carriers to build out more
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
I'm glad I asked. Good answers. So let me ask one more to both you and membership... Why would we possibly want to lobby to keep USF? Is there one? (That is realistic and legelly viable to achieve.) 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: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements so that there is less redlining of the more profitable portions of their license area. I think that the idea of pitting the New Jersey delegation against the Alaska delegation is fantastic. Why should people in NJ be paying for phone services in Alaska? I would like to close with an illustration of what goes on with USF. USF is attached to every access line, and looks pretty innocuous on a single line phone bill. However, when I was running a dialup ISP and we had several hundred lines coming into our system, that USF cost was in the $3000/$4000 range every month. Especially frustrating was that one of my main competitors was the unregulated subsidiary of a nearby rural ILEC that was receiving a ton of USF money, had access to low interest capital from USDA and was receiving reciprocal compensation for terminating phone calls to their ISP system. In my mind, that $4000/month was going right to them to compete with me.Their subsidiary did not receive the money directly, but it paid the salaries of their staff and generated traffic into their system to generate more money. It also allowed them to either buy or bid up the price on 700mhz spectrum for a big chunk of the state of Nebraska - and they are only deploying service in part of it. Also paid the salaries of the people on their staff that do nothing but fill out government forms and apply for grants from federal and state sources, and that money was used to compete with multiple private operators. I had to file about 40 or so broadband stimulus protests against one of the wireless carriers in our area that receives USF money because they wanted to get MORE government money to upgrade their network. That is what
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:15:08AM -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: I've always been pro-tax credit, based on my personal agenda. I think it incourages investment, not only helps reduce an ISP's tax burden. However, from my experience debating ARRA, I learned there can be some disadvantages of Tax Credits. The BIG disadvantage for WISPs is that it helps Large Telcos and Cable Cos and large scale VC backed companies the most. They have tons of income they'd love to have tax relief from. They also have tons of money to invest, WISPs may have less comparatively. Probaly the best way to get FIOS built out to your community, to put the local WISP out of business, is to give Verizon a healthy Tax credit to Invest there. Those companies you fear have always had more money than our ISPs. It's about customer service and adopting technology, that we survive, not by financial superiority. If the goal is to help more American get faster broadband sooner, Tax Credits is a great idea. But if the goal is to help make sure WISPs becomes a larger part of that solution, I'm not so sure it helps us. Strategically, it would benefit WISPs if we could discourage investment from large carriers. That first goal is one that would be supported and we should be able to say our goal is not contrary to that. The other thing is that Tax Credits equally rewards all spending whether it is efficent or wasteful spending. Dont we want policy that focuses rewards to those that spent more efficiently? WISP's advantage is that they have more affordable cost of deployment. One of the things I challenge today is where there is any place left on teh planet in rural America that is not cost effective to serve with wireless? With the exception of Tower costs. If line of sight can be acheived, and twoers are needed, the cost to deploy an area can skyrocket. But otherwise, even rural areas of 1 home per square mile can be afforded with Fixed Wireless. HAving a low dnsity is actually preferred. When a 2.4Ghz AP can extend 20 miles, and can only support about 20-50 homes per AP, its a perfect match for low density rural terrain. That's a lot of assumptions. http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/jeffersonsouth/ Here's an IR panorama from a tower we just put up last year in one of the best locations in our service area. You can see a few houses around the tower/hill site, but otherwise as far as you can see it's trees and 90%+ of customers require NLOS solutions due to trees. This was not cost effective to serve without a state grant. Not only did we need 900 instead of 2.4, we needed multiple APs and sectors with downtilt, as 900mhz interference comes in from afar when you have a tower atop a nice hill. I also have no patience for thoise that say a small rurla town can survive without being a monopoly. I live in a farm town with 300 homes, 25 acre zoning minimum, most have much more land per farm.. And here are 4 WISPs in this town, and there is enough revenue for each of us, for each of us to justify keeping up operations. What it means is that we dont put all our eggs in one town. Having 25% of the market in 4 towns, is equivellent to 100% of the market to serve one. I only need 5 customers in a town for it to be profitable to serve. (again, there are exceptions to that based on tower requirements). But the answer is just to spread out farther, so one towns infrastructure can subsidize the next's. Sometimes it means diversity, where a provider might need to offer otehr services like Compueter repir or traininf along side their Broadband opperations. But that has often been the way it is in small towns, where businesses serve more than one function for its community, than its core competency. What people really mean is that Fiber is more cost effective to deploy as a monopoly. Isn't what we really need is continued awareness building that Wireless delivers what people need, and what is needed is investment in Wireless. Like the Rolling Stones said, You cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you can get what you need. The other thing is that a tax credit will decrease the fed government revenue earned from larger telcos (our competitirs), which is a huge sum of money. Wouldn't it be better if that revenue was kept, and reused for broadband programs that would help smaller providers and competitive providers? Killing off USF and giving tax credits in combined would benefit wealthy urban/suburban RBOCs and Cable Cos the most. One price advantage that WISPs have today, is that we dont have to impose that 6% USF tax today on our subscribers. Its one of the hidden charges on teh telco bill, that helps reduce how much RBOCS out price us. How many WISPs advertise, no hidden charges? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
While I'm at it Next Quesetions Im sure the feds will easilly understand why we WISPs want the USF to be killed. But, should the feds accommodate the intersts of 1000 WISPs/ISPs or a 100 million rural consumers? At the end of the day, there is an acknowledged digital divide, and something needs to be done about it, in the Fed's minds. As it sits today, do WISPs / small ISPs have enough capitol and funding to cure it? Can we get broadband to 99% of Americans in 5 years, like ATT TV Commercials say they can? I'd argue not. Lets lower the sandard Can WISPs/small ISPs accomplish the penetration goals stated in the NBP first draft? (I forget what they are exactly , but something like 50mb or higher to 100 million homes and atleast 5mbps to everywhere else.) I'd like to think we could, but honestly I think thats still stretching our capabilty without assitance. So how do we propose that the Digital divide be cured, and funded, if USF gets killed? Currently, Feds would like to redirect USF funds, and that is targeted as a potential solution, even if it kills WISPs. (We are expendable, if consumers get broadband). If we argue that USF funds are used inefficiently, wont the defense be to reform USF so it will be used efficiently instead? Sure we can argue that it never will be. But not sure policy makers will accept the answer (or I should say insult) that they aren't capable. I dont think we can effectively argue there is no problem to solve. Specifically Brian Webster's report supports 24% of America is still unserved. So in summary, the question is. How are we going to fund solving the rural digital divide in a timely fassion? I recognize, we could simply reply, dont know, but USF clearly isn't it, for X reasons.. But it would be great if we could give them the alternative. I recognize this is not an easy question. For example the entire NBP was written to start to address the answer. Policy makers are heavilly advocating for all Americans. I've been asked and tested by policy makers, with the question, Can I serve everyone in my coverag area.. And I have to truthfully say no, I can not.. That is one of the reasons feds show favoratism to the ILECs(mini monoplies). This is a problem. I'm not sure feds are as worried abouyt efficient use of money as much as getting the job done. ILECs have a proven record to get it done with VOIP, why could they not do the same with Broadband, if they got the USF free handout. At the end of the day, we need to tell Congress what we need to get the job done, or if we already have what we need, our better plan that will replace USF. 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: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
I'll be there. But if we keep getting all this good feedback from everyone, there wont be much left to debate :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband I nominate Matt Larsen to serve on the panel for USF at the Regional Meeting! Wouldn't it be interesting if Tom was on there to? I'd go just for the debate! On 5/28/2010 12:39 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska Permanent Fund - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund - has 28 Billion dollars in it, and is primarily used to pay an annual dividend to Alaska residents. I'm pretty sure that money would go to better use if Alaska used that to pay for their communications infrastructure needs instead of expecting the residents of the lower-48 to pay for it. 2) Rural Telco Failure. I have a really hard time believing that a rural telco could fail, but I guess it could happen. In that scenario, I would suggest that the government set up some kind of a trustee operation that maintained the operation of the telco until a buyer could be found. I live in a very rural area, and the majority of the rural ILECs here are swimming in money from USF, and have very successful unregulated subsidiaries that operate outside of the normal regulatory environment. With all of the recent advances in voice switching and remote broadband deployment, the residents of a community with a failling telco would be better off in the long run if the telco was allowed to fail and someone else was able to come in and rebuild with more modern equipment. This is a little tricky, but could be addressed in a more efficient manner than what we are seeing now. 3) Mobile Phone Coverage. There is a really simple answer to this one. There are buildout requirements in cellular licenses that the federal government grants to mobile carriers. They have been effectively lobbbying to get USF money to build out and meet those requirements. Even so, rural cellular coverage is awful. USF has been the carrot to incentivize rural wireless buildouts - now it is time to try the stick. Rural carriers that don't build out, or only build out the areas with with Interstates and highways (for roaming traffic) without building out to the sparsely populated rural locations lose their licenses. This will lower the value of the licenses in rural areas to the point where smaller competitors could feasibly buy licenses and compete. It would also substantially reduce the amount of spectrum warehousing that goes on in rural areas. No need to throw money at this problem, just enforce the existing laws and modify the requirements so that there is less redlining of the more profitable portions of their license area. I think that the idea of pitting the New Jersey delegation against the Alaska delegation is fantastic. Why should people in NJ be paying for phone services in Alaska? I would like to close with an illustration of what goes on with USF. USF is attached to every access line, and looks pretty innocuous on a single line phone bill. However, when I was running a dialup ISP and we had several hundred lines coming into our system, that USF cost was in the $3000/$4000 range every month. Especially frustrating was that one of my main competitors was the unregulated subsidiary of a nearby rural ILEC that was receiving a ton of USF money, had access to low interest capital from USDA and was receiving reciprocal compensation for terminating phone calls to their ISP system. In my mind, that $4000/month was going right to them to compete with me.Their subsidiary did not receive the money directly, but it paid the salaries of their staff and generated traffic into their system to generate more money. It also allowed them to either buy or bid up the price on 700mhz spectrum for a big chunk of the state of Nebraska - and they are only deploying service in part of it. Also paid the salaries of the people on their staff that do nothing but fill out government forms and apply for grants from federal and state sources, and that money was used to compete with multiple private operators. I had to file about 40 or so broadband stimulus protests against one of the wireless carriers
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband SURVEY
I agree. Most of the questions are too convoluted to clearly understand. For a survey like this to have any meaning at all, the questions need to be written clearly so everyone will understand them the same way. Leon D. Zetekoff wrote: On 5/27/2010 12:13 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: Done Please take the survey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XC5DF7F There are 10 questions on two pages. You must answer all statements with Agree, Undecided or Disagree to proceed. I would have liked to have asked whether the responders are a member or a non-member but we are only allowed 10 questions per survey and I didn't have room. T Hi RIck...can the grammar be improved? leon No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/26/10 02:25:00 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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/
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband
Those companies you fear have always had more money than our ISPs. It's about customer service and adopting technology, that we survive, not by financial superiority. I only partially agree. The facts are, people with funding can build faster than those that dont and have to fund their expansion through cash flow as they earn it. Its not about being able to compete with them, its about them getting there first. Once someone has service, that is fast and inexpensive, its tough to lewer them away afterwords. I can give an example of today... A fiber provider just tried to steal one of my customers, by undercutting me by 400% on dollars and increasing the speed by factor of 10. My customer called me, to negotiate because they valued my customer service. But none the less it was an offer they could not ignore, no matter how good my custoemr service. I kept the customer, but at the end of the day, I had to match the price. I cant afford to do that with everyone, but they could. Financial superiority does have a lot to do with it. That's a lot of assumptions. Let me rephrase my statement. The issue of rurality regarding home density per Sq mile (aka population) is not enough to justify the opinion that a monopoly is needed for operations to be profitable and sustainable. That was my point. Environmental Barriers on the other hand may. Non-Line-of-Site, whether Dense Foliage or hilly terrain is a wireless business plan killer. And fiber's higher cost or cost of wireless models to get around those challenges, can be financially difficult. In those cases, subsidees may be required, I fully agree. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:15:08AM -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: I've always been pro-tax credit, based on my personal agenda. I think it incourages investment, not only helps reduce an ISP's tax burden. However, from my experience debating ARRA, I learned there can be some disadvantages of Tax Credits. The BIG disadvantage for WISPs is that it helps Large Telcos and Cable Cos and large scale VC backed companies the most. They have tons of income they'd love to have tax relief from. They also have tons of money to invest, WISPs may have less comparatively. Probaly the best way to get FIOS built out to your community, to put the local WISP out of business, is to give Verizon a healthy Tax credit to Invest there. Those companies you fear have always had more money than our ISPs. It's about customer service and adopting technology, that we survive, not by financial superiority. If the goal is to help more American get faster broadband sooner, Tax Credits is a great idea. But if the goal is to help make sure WISPs becomes a larger part of that solution, I'm not so sure it helps us. Strategically, it would benefit WISPs if we could discourage investment from large carriers. That first goal is one that would be supported and we should be able to say our goal is not contrary to that. The other thing is that Tax Credits equally rewards all spending whether it is efficent or wasteful spending. Dont we want policy that focuses rewards to those that spent more efficiently? WISP's advantage is that they have more affordable cost of deployment. One of the things I challenge today is where there is any place left on teh planet in rural America that is not cost effective to serve with wireless? With the exception of Tower costs. If line of sight can be acheived, and twoers are needed, the cost to deploy an area can skyrocket. But otherwise, even rural areas of 1 home per square mile can be afforded with Fixed Wireless. HAving a low dnsity is actually preferred. When a 2.4Ghz AP can extend 20 miles, and can only support about 20-50 homes per AP, its a perfect match for low density rural terrain. That's a lot of assumptions. http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/jeffersonsouth/ Here's an IR panorama from a tower we just put up last year in one of the best locations in our service area. You can see a few houses around the tower/hill site, but otherwise as far as you can see it's trees and 90%+ of customers require NLOS solutions due to trees. This was not cost effective to serve without a state grant. Not only did we need 900 instead of 2.4, we needed multiple APs and sectors with downtilt, as 900mhz interference comes in from afar when you have a tower atop a nice hill. I also have no patience for thoise that say a small rurla town can survive without being a monopoly. I live in a farm town with 300 homes, 25 acre zoning minimum, most have much more land per farm.. And here are 4 WISPs in this town, and there is enough revenue for each of us, for each of us to
Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband - NTIA Press release today
The NTIA just did a press release today saying they are going to let the state broadband mapping agencies modify their grants for the mapping efforts http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/SBDDNewWindow_05282010.html Not to sound self serving but to get better WISP participation, and showing many of these supposed unserved areas are really served, WISPA could support the idea of each state paying someone who understands how to properly map WISP coverage and convert that information to a GIS format. If the WISP were to do this with an entity they trust, and that works with the WISP to make sure the map results are accurate, this may help to accurately identify these truly unserved areas. I have talked to many WISP's who felt the requests for information by the states was burdensome and those that did see results were not happy with the end product as it seemed to be inaccurate. If a trusted party did the mapping, the final coverage could be released without having to give up all kinds of other proprietary data. Just a thought as I read this press release.. There may not be so many people unserved as the government currently thinks and thus could be good ammunition to argue against a USF fund. Hard to argue that fact if there is no independent data to back it up. Brian -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 5:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband While I'm at it Next Quesetions Im sure the feds will easilly understand why we WISPs want the USF to be killed. But, should the feds accommodate the intersts of 1000 WISPs/ISPs or a 100 million rural consumers? At the end of the day, there is an acknowledged digital divide, and something needs to be done about it, in the Fed's minds. As it sits today, do WISPs / small ISPs have enough capitol and funding to cure it? Can we get broadband to 99% of Americans in 5 years, like ATT TV Commercials say they can? I'd argue not. Lets lower the sandard Can WISPs/small ISPs accomplish the penetration goals stated in the NBP first draft? (I forget what they are exactly , but something like 50mb or higher to 100 million homes and atleast 5mbps to everywhere else.) I'd like to think we could, but honestly I think thats still stretching our capabilty without assitance. So how do we propose that the Digital divide be cured, and funded, if USF gets killed? Currently, Feds would like to redirect USF funds, and that is targeted as a potential solution, even if it kills WISPs. (We are expendable, if consumers get broadband). If we argue that USF funds are used inefficiently, wont the defense be to reform USF so it will be used efficiently instead? Sure we can argue that it never will be. But not sure policy makers will accept the answer (or I should say insult) that they aren't capable. I dont think we can effectively argue there is no problem to solve. Specifically Brian Webster's report supports 24% of America is still unserved. So in summary, the question is. How are we going to fund solving the rural digital divide in a timely fassion? I recognize, we could simply reply, dont know, but USF clearly isn't it, for X reasons.. But it would be great if we could give them the alternative. I recognize this is not an easy question. For example the entire NBP was written to start to address the answer. Policy makers are heavilly advocating for all Americans. I've been asked and tested by policy makers, with the question, Can I serve everyone in my coverag area.. And I have to truthfully say no, I can not.. That is one of the reasons feds show favoratism to the ILECs(mini monoplies). This is a problem. I'm not sure feds are as worried abouyt efficient use of money as much as getting the job done. ILECs have a proven record to get it done with VOIP, why could they not do the same with Broadband, if they got the USF free handout. At the end of the day, we need to tell Congress what we need to get the job done, or if we already have what we need, our better plan that will replace USF. 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: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband Tom, Thank you for asking your questions - I have some awesome answers for you. 1) Alaska. Alaska does indeed have an infrastructure problem. Alaska also receives an enormous amount of federal support already along with substantial revenues from their natural resources, mainly oil and gas. These Americans would not be left out in the cold - communication wise - if they took some of their massive piles of money and built out their infrastructure. Right now, the Alaska
Re: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache
So, speaking of cache tuning, Who is ready for DNSSEC? On May 28, 2010 11:44 AM, Justin Wilson li...@mtin.net wrote: DNS tuning is pretty straightforward. One of my guy¹s is awesome at it. If you are running BIND there are quite a bit of things you can do. We are running bind in some VM¹s and they are still quite fast. The trick is do it as close to the customer as you can (duh! You say). Djbdns is tuneable to be fast as well. Most of the slowdown of DNS involves config issues. Once those are fixed you can re-compile and tune. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:33:44 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I'm also looking for something better here. We have our own dns servers. Who's good at configurin... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Fast DNS cache
Depends what you mean by ready? For being able to answer DNSSEC queries, i'm all good to go. As far signing domains with it, i have yet to venture down that path. On 5/28/2010 8:59 PM, Jon Auer wrote: So, speaking of cache tuning, Who is ready for DNSSEC? On May 28, 2010 11:44 AM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net wrote: DNS tuning is pretty straightforward. One of my guy¹s is awesome at it. If you are running BIND there are quite a bit of things you can do. We are running bind in some VM¹s and they are still quite fast. The trick is do it as close to the customer as you can (duh! You say). Djbdns is tuneable to be fast as well. Most of the slowdown of DNS involves config issues. Once those are fixed you can re-compile and tune. Justin -- Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Marlon K. Schafero...@odessaoffice.com Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:33:44 -0700 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fast DNS cache I'm also looking for something better here. We have our own dns servers. Who's good at configurin... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Chris Gotstein Sr Network Engineer UP Logon/Computer Connection UP 500 N Stephenson Ave Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Phone: 906-774-4847 Fax: 906-774-0335 ch...@uplogon.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/
