Very fine work Jack. I spent some time early this morning reading
the comments and commend you for a good job. I am curious, how you
came up with the 300 MHz number:
300 MHz of spectrum will be needed for fixed wireless
broadband to replace the noisy and crowded license-free
We are looking to buy Trango Atlas Units, offlist
thanks
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 03:12:35PM -0500, Butch Evans wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 15:29 -0400, jp wrote:
Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance
greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
I'm considering using one to replace an aging
SRX series is the likely the way forward on Juniper CPU-based routers,
capable of running BGP, MPLS etc. If you don't need the security stuff
on SRX, just don't use it or don't pay for the extra features.
Rubens
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote:
Anyone use
Personally I put zero value in the this information is confidential
statements. It's a joke. Just because someone puts that tag at the bottom
of the email doesn't mean that I have to agree to it. I signed no paper
saying I wouldn't share any of the information. It's no more than someone
asking
Thanks guys for your input. I was pretty sure I could get away with it, but
checking.
It is a very interesting conversation with the state CIO.
V
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Saturday, October 24,
Actually, if you get right down to it, I think you were within their
parameters. It says the information is for the addressee's use, that
would be you. You used it to determine if you were capable of meeting
the contract obligations.
It should say, is only for the use of the sender. Then
I agreed to nothing so just because someone tells me I can't tell someone
else, too bad for them. They can't just dictate something to me with no 2
way agreement. It's like if I come up to you on the street and tell you to
do something. Do you have to do it just because I said so or do we have
I wasn't arguing that at all, in fact I am in agreement.
My point is, if you read the notice, it gives you permission to do what
you want with it. To me,
intended solely for the use of the addressee
means you, the addressee, can do what you want because it is for you.
Robert West wrote:
I
I know, I know. Sorry, I was just arguing in general. It's that kind of
day.
Is it possible to kill customers and still have them pay for the service?
Just wondering..
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott
Scott Reed wrote:
I wasn't arguing that at all, in fact I am in agreement.
My point is, if you read the notice, it gives you permission to do what
you want with it. To me,
LOL...true, good point!
It's a lot like NDA's, you can't distribute the info they give you, but
there is nothing
Be sure to talk to some of the other companies owners that they have
bought out. Cash up front is what works. I've seen a lot of
companies promise the moon and deliver squat.
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Jack thank you for the post. Very nice document. Can you update us on the next
steps, what will happen with document. From what I understand the FCC does not
have to do anything, right?
Steve Barnes
Manager
PCS-WIN
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
-Original Message-
From:
Folks in this state have been getting a bit upset, and I don't blame them.
Telecommunication/Cable associations have been complaining and we don't know
if anyone is listening.
The state has proposed a project that repeats not just one, but a multitude
of fiber carriers.
They have
Wow! I've been on this list since May 2004. Time sure flies! Thats
back when Marlon really talked a lot - lol! -RickG
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
If it's going on a public list then it's public information. How are you
going to protect
Steve,
Together with the other Comments filed in the proceeding, including
Reply Comments due November 13, the Comments will be considered by the
FCC as it develops its National Broadband Plan.
jack
Steve Barnes wrote:
Jack thank you for the post. Very nice document. Can you update us
Although I think that would be a good idea, before such is done, make sure
the vendor authorizes it to occur.
Depending on the outcome of the meeting, they may or may not want it as
public record.
And as teh vendor member they should ahve the right to determine if their
webinar can go on the
So does supporting comments help or make any difference? If it does should we
send out directions and a call for comments to the FCC.
Steve Barnes
Manager
PCS-WIN
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Jack Unger
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 16:26 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote:
If a vendor knows the webinar is public archived, they may hold back
important information to protect their strategic interests.
Because vendors are all evil? Why would you think this is the case?
NOBODY (vendor or otherwise) would
Yes, it would have to be a member only video at that :)
---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member
Office:
I know a lot of people feel that way, but it's bull. If it's that
important, don't divulge it to anyone in the first place, which defeats the
purpose of the webinar or any presentation to your clients of any kind.
Once it's released, your technology is just as good as someone else's
anyway.
I hate to insert myself into a thread I don't really care about nor have
been paying attention to, but I feel compelled to reply to this due to one
sentence you stated...
==
Trust me, there is very little if anything any vendor or WISP does that's
secret or special.
==
If you don't
I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording should
really be implied.
WISPA has all the right in the world to archieve their media and if they are
hosting the webinar for the benefit of their members. Now if WISPA wanted to
sell the webinar to someone outside the
What's the big deal? Just follow the instructions in the signature.
Richey
This email and any attachments (Message) may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the addressee, or if this
Message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to
That's better,no politics! Just show me the money
Sent From My I1000
--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote:
From: Richey myli...@battleop.com
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 10:04 PM
LOL, and that is at the BOTTOM of the message. Most people follow the
traditional American way of readingFrom the top down. Makes NO sense to
me.(hey, and no offense to the bottom posters)... I have learned to examine the
entire post, although I misconstrue it too much(Jack)?
Scottie
yep,gotta read it all! fune
Sent From My I1000
--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com wrote:
From: Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 11:35 PM
Butch,
How in the world could you distort my comment to mean vendors are evil?
I made a comment to PROTECT Vendors' interests.
It is common practice for radio manufacturers to keep the details of their
products confidential from other competitors in the market space.
They put lots of time and
I think if the vendor agrees to speak before WISPA then the recording
should really be implied.
There is absolutely nothing implied.
It takes like 2 seconds to ASK the vendor the question, and there is
absolutely no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be asked.
So why not just Ask the
29 matches
Mail list logo
