I noticed that many WISPs have plans based on how many customer
computers are hooked up to the customer's service. How does that
work? Your installer counts computers initially, but then what?
I have several power users with 5-10 computers and would like to move
them to another plan, but need
Good job Tom, George and Brent.
I personally have not done my due diligence in filing form 477, but will now
put it on my priority list.
It is good to hear about the 5.4GHz, hope the vendors will follow suit.
Victoria Proffer
www.stlbroadband.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Mark,
wireless ISP, exactly why would you know about it? Wireless guys are more
likely to have some knowlege of the FCC.. non-wireless... The FCC is foreign
and irrelevant to them.
This argument is moot considering they were talking about WISP's,
specifically, not non wireless guys.
Can I hear from people that are running an
SR9 and an SR2 on the same board, be it
RB112 or 532's, that are putting them both
on one board in the same enclosure ?
I've read about problems doing that because
of the fact that the SR9 is just an up/down
converted 2.4 card...
And in fact, I'm seeing
Thanks Rick. That was painless.
Victoria Proffer
www.stlbroadband.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due Date Approaching
How about a blade system .. n lightweight cards plugged into and
coordinated/configured by a controller. I wonder if RF filtering would be
required along the backplane.
Wouldn't it be something if APs were stackable like switches?
Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List:
I have observed a discussion on the members only list, talked to people with
insight and given it a lot of thought.
1.) I do think that WISPA needs to make a stand to promote membership
compliance to Part 15 rules. We should modify our mission statement and our
goals to reflect this.
2.)
Test. Please disregard.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Rick,
An excellent post! Hearing the comments from the FCC meeting I think the
time is now to do just what you state.
Thank You,
Brian Webster
-Original Message-
From: Rick Harnish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:03 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
We just tell them that the fact that they have more computers will
inevitably increase the expected bandwidth usage. We're flexible on it.
Essentially, if we have a customer that is clearly a business setup, we
charge more. If it is an ultra-geek setup, we'll charge it. If it's a mom
pop
Rick - I believe they should pay for the certification and not increase
the prices. The prices and margins they are achieving on RouterOS /
StarOS type stuff is more then adequate.
I am sure Lonnie will chime in here and I really don't care. If
companies outside of the US want to sell their gear
Mark:
You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless
systems.
PCs are UNintentional radiators, with radiated power levels that are
very, very low.
Wireless systems are intentional radiators, at significant power
levels, and through unintended mixing, have the
I tell my residential subs that we don't care if they have a hundred PCs. We
don't have a cap on bandwidth that is available, but we do tell them that
with each subscription is included 5gigs of data transfer per month. We sale
bandwidth for a living and it is metered just like electricity and
Yes, but how do you explain what 5G/month is to the average sub??
They worry because they don't see this with the 'big boys' that
advertize don't sevre their area. Do you find it takes alot more
selling/education for each sub?
On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tell my
You could also consider limiting the number of simultaneous connections-
We limit our residential plans to 75 (Family basic) and 100 (family
Power) simultaneous connections. If they share the connections or have
many computers they will max out real quick. The numbers have been
tested (75 and 100)
I don't bother with any of this.
Most subs don't use much and the few that do either have no effect on my
system or end up going elsewhere.
I prefer to not have them go elsewhere, because I have ample unused
bandwidth and most of my aps can handle the extra traffic, amd I can use
the
The way I make them understand is that I tell them that I have hundreds of
businesses (call them by name) that use less than 3gigs of data transfer a
month. I also tell them that it is relatively impossible for them to even
get close to 2 gigs of transfer by sending emails, general surfing,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote:
When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a
spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated
energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't.
As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one.
Thanks for your summary Tom. I not even going to pretend to be surprised
by anything they mentioned -- as your meeting only validates my recent
posts on the subject, no matter how much so many reject what I say as
opinion and no matter how many think these are matters of choice. They
are not. When
Care to share what the simultaneous connection limits you used?
On 2/17/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way I make them understand is that I tell them that I have hundreds of
businesses (call them by name) that use less than 3gigs of data transfer a
month. I also tell them that it
Woo! Hoo! FANTASTIC NEWS Rick. If WISPA adopts this, it has just moved
up several notches in the credibility department. Know that you may lose
some members, but that is to your benefit and credit in the long run.
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
There is now a [EMAIL PROTECTED] private mailing listserv. I have designed
this list to serve Canadian WISPs only. Membership to this list is
moderated but postings are not. If a member of this list wants to become
the moderator at some point, they should contact me. The signup for the
list is
I, for one, agree with Butch.
Parts certification is the way it needs to go.
Hold the part manufactures responsible for their published numbers.
Allow operators to mix-n-match parts as they see fit, within the power
limits. Hold operators responsible for their EIRP numbers.
This would
The ISP is directly affected by the bandwidth used by an account but is also
affected by the loss of revenue if that account is redistributing the
service. That is theft of service the same as wiring up an apartment
building with cable TV from a single account.
Connection measuring can put a
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:17:09 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote
Mark:
You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless
systems.
I merely used PC's because anyone who's been around the PC business for a few
years will be aware of the change that occurred a while back that allowed
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:02:09 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote:
As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one.
Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished.
For example:
As much as we've had our differences and
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:13:34 -0600, JohnnyO wrote
I feel as though Lonnie and Tully could get together and split the costs
involved... Man I'd love to see that !
You are ALWAYS spoiling for a fistfight, aren't you? hahahahaah
Regards,
JohnnyO
I was serious actually Mark - if WISPs can work together and so can
other vendors - then why not these 2 ?
JohnnyO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of wispa
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA]
Blair, that is certainly a possible thing for WISPs to advocate for as a
rules change, and if you feel strongly about that you should do the work
with other like-minded WISPs to effect change. That's a positive thing
to do and caring enough to actively effect change using the process is
always
Also, please note. WISPA had a team at the FCC a year or two ago. That
team specifically met with the Form 477 team. Out of that meeting we now
have FAQ #8 in the instructions. That is SPECIFICALLY for the WISP market.
You only have to fill out a few lines on the form. It's really quite
4 gigs here.
My average user (including all of my servers etc.) uses 1.7 or so per month.
Gigs 5 through 10 are $5 each (that works out to a LOWER rate than the first
4 gigs are per gig!).
Gigs 11 through 20 are $10 each.
After that it's all custom. Our largest customer does roughly 40 to
Welcome to Cameron Crum of Dot11 Networks as a new Principal Member of
WISPA. Thank you for your support of WISPA. Here is a bit about their
operations:
Dot11 was founded in 2003 by 4 former wireless telecommunications
engineers. We currently serve fixed wireless to markets in southern
Yeppers.
It's amazing how well the bill per bit model has worked at getting people to
clean up their home networks!
http://64.146.146.1:81/graphs/iface/eth1-uplink/
Can anyone guess when we started the program? grin
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL
So Mark, your installer just makes a note of the number of computers
during the install? or do you control the router and filter MACs so
the customer has to call each time a computer (wired or wireless) is
added??
On 2/17/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just tell them that the fact
RB112+CM9+Rootenna if you are not sticker conscious.
If you are sticker conscious I use the Tranzeo TR5a-24/20 with MT/CM9
setups and they work great.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
rabbtux rabbtux wrote:
Not to stir the fcc sticker debate, but what gear is out there today
that is
Rick,
I too offer my heartfelt applause to your recommendations.
As I've tried to point out, any WISP's problems with regulators
are all about PERCEPTIONS. If we are to be taken seriously
we must be perceived to be trying our level-best to be
good custodians of the spectrum we've been permitted
I've seen many issues that were fixed by raising the antenna that was
shooting to low over a rooftop...
-RickG
On 2/15/07, Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... So it is not a good practice in general to shoot across a
flat roof without some height on the radio. In looking at the
Netopia is another very reliable router.
-RickG
On 2/15/07, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cdw.com carries the Cisco 851W for $379.
John
-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 08:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Many good arguements that you stated for component certification method.
I played the restricting innovation card, at the meaning. The FCC did say
that they would put some more thought into this.
But remember, components in a PC aren't supposed to go airbourne, so its a
little more risky and
39 matches
Mail list logo
