This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of
device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply
listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would
make all this data available via some reasonable API;
Skyscrapers.com is often useful in major cities.
-Matt
On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Charles Hooper wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone know a reliable source/method of getting building heights?
Something like a topographical map that included buildings would be
excellent, but I haven't been able
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
NTIA and RUS will grant a limited extension of time to file infrastructure
applications in the second funding round. Specifically, applicants for BTOP
Comprehensive Community Infrastructure projects will have until March 26th to
file their applications to NTIA. Applicants
They have to do something. If they don't start adding customers soon their
first mover advantage is going to be lost.
-Matt
On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:
They've met with our datacenter folks and been on the roof numerous times.
To me, that says they're getting ready to
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf
* 35% percent of americans unserved
* We need to tackle the challenge of connecting 93 million Americans to our
broadband future, said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement timed
with the release of the survey. In the
You raise the money. I'll do the programming. WISPA can keep the money.
-Matt
On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Mac Dearman wrote:
I would be glad to start a $$ pool to have someone develop a tool for WISPA
members to get the data we need for the form 477. On second thoughts - - it
would be
I don't think this is good. The last time it was tried we got a bunch of
unsustainable business models along with increasing gamesmanship from the
ILECs. Besides, the RBOCs are looking for reasons to shutdown their wireline
operations anyway. This will only speed that up.
I think we need
Central is better. I like not losing a day for travel. I thought St. Louis was
suggested at one point, which seems like a decent idea.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
I personally like central shows because less travel time and less time zone
change for all America
Seems like a logical position if the purpose of the show is to drive WISPA
membership. Maybe the existing members want a show for another purpose.
-Matt
On Feb 8, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
While I initially had the same concerns you had and was not even that
personally impressed
On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
I am afraid you will have to be disapointed. I know that American
Thinker has a point of view...but what SPECIFICALLY did they get wrong?
It doesn't matter what was right or wrong in the article you cited because even
if everything was
The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed
under Bush in 1989 because of the S L crisis. I mention this only to provide
some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of
administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing
] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in
regulationofnet-neutrality
The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later
changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S L
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on
lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified.
No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of
the bad
x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l)
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role
On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained
capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And
unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its
customers own best
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's
roleinregulationofnet-neutrality
You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure
-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l)
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:29 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what
,
Jeff
Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
+1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l)
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject
Prepending is no longer the desirable solution and should only be used if your
upstreams don't support a better way.
The preferred way is to adjust local preference based on a route policy. You
can simply prefer your fiber circuit if you want or adjust it on an AS basis.
You will likely only
Many of those licenses had serious restrictions, which is why the auction
reverse was so low in the first place.
-Matt
On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Charles Wu wrote:
Speaking of which, did anyone notice the results of the latest BRS Auction
(#86)
Licenses went for an average of $0.03 /
A $33.5 million grant to the North Georgia Network Cooperative for a
fiber-optic ring that will bring high-speed Internet connections to
the northern Georgia foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. The
project will serve an eight-county area with a population of 334,000.
A $25.4 million
See the highlighted projects here...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/20091217-recovery-act-investments-broadband.pdf
-Matt
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:20 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 13:24, Robert West robert.w...@just-
micro.comwrote:
So how did it get
On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Matt, would you mind clarifying.When you said... have not the
left the
business, did you mean
I don't mind clarifying, but I am not sure what the interest is.
1) Have not left OneRing/RapidLink, and are involved in a non-employee
On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:29 AM, rwf wrote:
Oh?
So you are still a WISP then?
What is your company called?
Guess your filter still isn't working then. I am not a WISP and never
have been.
If you think you know something and would like to get yourself and
others in trouble then by all means
on this topic no matter
what Matt says next.
Greg
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt,
Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba
because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, MDK wrote:
As I stated before... Medicare reimburses such low amounts, that
ever
doctor, hospital, clinic, lab, etc, that accepts it does so at a
loss. Not
just no profit but at a loss.Not only that, but Medicare has the
highest level of financial
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, MDK wrote:
I'm sure you're a nice guy...
But you're trying to convince a lot of people who know better by
long years
of experience, that life would be beautiful and all will be fine, if
we just
give Congress a few more trillion dollars a year of our hard
On Dec 9, 2009, at 12:20 AM, MDK wrote:
Every country with a government run medical system Denies
routine
medical care, extraordinary medical care, or expensive medical care
on a
routine basis. This is why babies delivered by the NHS hospitals in
Britain are less than 90% born
morally relieved of any personal
responsibility for
those who suffer for a lack, right?
Or, are you going to tell us that government can buy unlimited
health care
for everyone?
--
From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 08
On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:50 AM, rwf wrote:
Matt-
Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list.
It is not my debate. I believe the list was discussing this for at
least 3 days before I made my first post.
When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active.
I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring as an employee, but I have
not left the business. Ralph likes to speak out of turn.
-Matt
On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
Matt's not in the business anymore? News to me. I thought he was
with
Rapid or Ring something or another?
?
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring
History should be a guide; not a box. Our country has proven that our
system of government and its attitude towards the free market is
unmatched by any other system of government past or present. However,
multinational corporations are something new that our system is having
a hard time
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Not sure where you got this info Matt. I've seen just the
opposite. In
Mississippi they had lost most of the OB/GYN docs. They are now
getting
what they need since they enacted tort reform.
You've seen or read the studies? Because
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
Agreed. Tort reform will help save healthcare costs and enable more
doctors
to practice their trade. My doctor just shut down his practice of
20-30
years and let his entire staff go due to the cost of business
growing out of
control.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1
The article certainly shares some facts and anecdotes regarding the
2003 Texas tort reform. However, it doesn't point to any research that
ties cause and effect.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Andy Trimmell wrote:
Kinda like when I was home schooled as a kid and my parents had to pay
school taxes for public school? Only makes sense that we'd again pay
twice for another public option.
Good analogy.
I don't think your parents had to pay twice. They
Those other countries that have better health outcomes and a longer
life expectancy have taken profit out of healthcare. Further, their
doctors are smart and spent a lot of time and money going to medical
as well. Most did it for the same reasons as doctors here. And many
get paid well
On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:
If Cuba is so good, why do they rank below the US?
Mostly likely because they are such a poor country and can't spend
much money on healthcare.
-Matt
WISPA
On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:
You can't have it both ways.
The survey (which is flawed, but it was brought up) says that Cuba
rates below the US. Did you read how the numbers were come up
with?
I guess I don't understand how I am expecting it both ways. You asked
why
On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Exactly. Bernie Madoff went to jail because of his Ponzi scheme,
why didn't
FDR for social security? Well, other than the obvious of him dieing.
Maybe you don't realize that Madoff fraudulently mislead investors
whereas social security is
And I guess because you know someone from Canada/Britain/France/Spain/
etc that swears the healthcare is worse then they make it out to be
and that the US is where everyone with money goes then it must be
true. Let's all just ignore study after study that shows every single
first world
On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt,
Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba
because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I speak
Spanish. I know Cubans and I know a lot of people who have been to
Cuba. You're putting
show ip route
-Matt
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
Does the lack of response mean there is no tool?
Is this something WISPS would use if it were available?
Scott Reed wrote:
Does anyone have a tool you use to help determine OSPF link costs
and
track what you have set
Too many lists just fragment the conversation. Many including myself
just don't feel like joining a bunch of lists. Ultimately, if WISPA is
trying to move the value of the lists to just members then they should
just make the existing list, members only and be done with.
-Matt
On Sep 12,
in a netbook and a USB dongle.
Does
anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz?
Tim
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tim Sylvester t...@avanzarnetworks.comwrote:
What part of the 3650 rules make E not supportable?
Tim
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009
My two cents is that BIP/BTOP is going to be great for vendors and
terrible for WISPs. The vendors don't care who gets awarded the money
as long as they sell gear.
-Matt
On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:
Just an observation.
Lots of companies are asking for letters of
On Jul 17, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Clearly a victory that some government bodies are recognizing WISP
provers.
(Even if they are a publically traded company :-)
Just to clarify... We partnered with a local operator named Mother
Lode Internet. The local operator will focus
Revenue matters a lot less now. Earnings-based deals are what are
being done now. Of course, many WISPs are spending all of their
earnings on CAPEX. This is where capitalized leases play such a
critical role.
-Matt
On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
3x gross annual was a
So it would seem, but that is not the case. There are plenty of
companies looking to acquire operators right now that are EBITDA
positive. Unfortunately, too many operators that would normally be
interested in a deal are hoping for a windfall thanks to ARRA. This
means that the supply of
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
Isn't Ben a WISPA member? I thought he'd told me two ISPCons ago he
was going to join...
Not that I am aware.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
CASF Funding to Accelerate Broadband Services Delivery to Five Counties
Company to Seek Additional Funding Through ARRA Broadband Stimulus
Programs
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rapid-Link-Awarded-iw-2628732805.html?x=0.v=1
-Matt
customer of ours has a Cisco that does.
-Matt
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
Good call... I forgot all about IP SLA. We can easily query that via
SNMP.
-Matt
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Rutis, Cameron wrote:
I haven't worked with it yet but cisco's IP SLA feature can
/technologies_white_paper0900aecd801752ec.html
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ntop
On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote
On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Matt,
Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter?
I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter
information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of
RTP itself from our soft switches.
Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of
netflow and voip.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
45373
When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com
wrote:
Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of
netflow and voip
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Parr wrote:
Do you have any specific questions? Yes, it can identify most VoIP
traffic, and yes, it can take a netflow feed.
I am looking for a few things. One is to be able to track utilization
on a per AS basis both in realtime and over time. We have
150km radius
-Matt
On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
Okay I'm banging my head against the wall a bit this morning J
Subpart Z of the FCC Part 90 Rules - Wireless Broadband Serices in the
3650-3700 MHz Band - Section 90.1331 states:
(a)(1) Except as provided in
Wyble wrote:
BTW the calculations in the RO appendix have errors. I have a
corrected
version provided to me by the FCC OET. If there is interest I can post
it online and send the link.
Matt Liotta wrote:
150km radius
-Matt
On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
Okay I'm
More importantly OSPF or most IGPs for that matter can only get so
large before their performance becomes an issue. BGP doesn't have
these scalability issues. Therefore, large networks run OSPF or ISIS
for select parts of their network and then aggregate the parts behind
BGP.
-Matt
On
On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David wrote:
You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the
longer
a route will look.
Assuming your upstream didn't increase your local preference, which is
normally the case these days. AS prepending is no longer the ideal
methodology
If you provide the prefixes in question it would be easier. You may
want to have your customer check with their other upstreams to see
what communities they support. BGP communities that adjust local
preference are preferred over prepending. See http://www.onesc.net/communities/
for a
There is only one PA that can support GigE, which is the PA-GE.
Unfortunately, the slot can't support the full capacity of the
interface. Depending on what engine you have you will not likely
exceed 200Mbps with that interface. The only way to really handle GigE
with a 7200 is to get at
A lot less than you would think. We run Cisco for our entire network.
Costs have come way down on new equipment and there is a ton of used
equipment for pennies on dollar.
-Matt
On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Kevin Neal wrote:
I've found Cisco ports are more expensive than a Mikrotik
word:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/14756
Jeff
ImageStream
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco
and is generally transfered at the end with a buy out.
The amount of leased Cisco hardware is astounding.
-Matt
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:09 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing?
That is FUD from competing vendors.
http://www.infoworld.com/t
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Matt,
That was just the first article I found. There are plenty of
others. When
this first came out, I was on the ISP-Equipment List and it was a huge
subject of conversation. Many of the resellers of used Cisco gear
put a
note on
/US/prod/cisco_software_transfer_relicensing_policy.h
tml
Jeff
ImageStream
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT
On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Also, your opinion on this subject seems to have changed. This is
from your
post on 3-18-2008. The first part is David Smith's question to you:
How so? The IOS software issue continues to be complicated, which was
my original point.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:26 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
So you actually don't have any documentation that resale of Cisco gear
transfer the IOS license, thus making the gear usable (in Cisco's
eyes)
to the second-hand buyer. Gotcha.
Do you have any actual documentation where Cisco successfully
At the end of the day, the agencies giving out the money have to give
out a lot of money in a very short period of time. To achieve this
they plan on dividing up the allocations across a variety of other
entities for help as well as allocating large sums to individual
companies. This means
into this buildings MPOE's we would
have a
10
meg fiber circuit and be paying about $700 for it. The fiber is
at the
curb, but Bishop Ranch won't let TW Telecom in
John
Matt Liotta wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They
tend to
be overly pricy
On May 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Brad Belton wrote:
Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a
tenant
other than the property in question.
No it doesn't make that assumption. Tenants make long term decisions
related to property leases. In many cases, the tenant
[~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
--07:49:09-- http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
= `dummy.zip'
Connecting to 208.65.55.55:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip]
100%
[=
=
Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to
be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where
the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando
you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW Telecom,
they have
-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:53 AM
To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to
me please...
[~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
On May 12, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Eje Gustafsson says this is not the case or elsewhen I buy a minipci
wireless card for my laptop it would be illegal...
This has been discussed at length. No matter how many times someone
makes the laptop argument it doesn't change the fact
On May 12, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
I've been told personally by an FCC testing lab that I can take a
XR5 which
has been tested with say a 23db panel antenna (with FCC) and use the
same
gain antenna or less for myself and would not have to have it
certified
again...
On May 12, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Ok... so back to original dilemma...
I take a XR5, the precise antenna they certified with this radio
card, a
RB411 and hook it all up and use it myself within FCC RF guidelines.
Criminal or law abiding citizen...
Neither, but you
I could download the file in 16 seconds from Atlanta. Never saw it get
past 48Mbps. Did notice it was routing through Ashburn, which is less
than ideal if you are Florida.
-Matt
On May 11, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Yes lots of them, from different internet connections as
You are not going to get the answers you are seeking. Worse still
anyone who tries to give you those answers is either uninformed or
lying. As I stated several posts ago, you need to have a thorough
understanding of the equipment, have conducting extensive field
trials, and produced a
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
Matt, you said you needed to provide a reason why you did not suggest
Aperto. Would it not be preferrable to provide a real reason, not
something that is based on a weak deduction, e.g. Aperto issues few
PRs
so they must not do any
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
That was a PR from June 2008 Matt, when few vendors even had certified
product in the market for more than a month or two. Further, Manish is
not even here any longer. I joined, first as a full time consultant,
in
October 22, 2008. Check
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Lists wrote:
Am I owed the balance of the contract? Am I owed the cost of my
equipment?
Yes and yes assuming there is no provision in the contract why that
would not be the case. Since the customer owes you for the service and
the equipment if they destroy
Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with
the gear tend to avoid posting to threads about WiMAX because the
threads quickly devolve. I suggest you read the archives of this
mailing list. To summarize though; operators who use WiMAX like it and
think the
recommendations and WISP experiences from people
that have actually deployed Wimax in the 3650Mhz space. The area I'm
looking to serve wouldn't be cost effective to serve via Wifi.
Matt Liotta wrote:
Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with
the gear tend to avoid posting
On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:17 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
Matt,
How does what you say in the first paragraph make Aperto not viable?
I don't think anything from my first paragraph makes Aperto not
viable. I am not sure I even like the term viable. I wouldn't suggest
Aperto or recommend them as a
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
Matt, I apologize for the earlier post regarding your response in this
thread. This post was certainly one that is helpful and addresses the
questions that started the thread.
I obviously missed this email before my most recent post. However,
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
WiMAX obviously has some things to offer. It was written specifically
as an outdoor wireless specification. I think your summarization is a
little short of the truth, though. It would be nice, IMO, if you,
as an
operator who acutally
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2009/04/20/0420airspan.html
-Matt
On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Pat O'Connor wrote:
Anybody use Airspan for Wimax?
Michael Baird wrote:
It was interesting, but I was hoping for some more first hand
experience
reporting.
Mike Tataris
Specialized Account Manager - WSG
Phone: 404-649-1521
Cell: 678-478-9132
Fax: 800-329-6882
Email: mike.tata...@sprint.com
On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Does anyone have a contact at Sprint wholesale.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
You want a pseudowire appliance that creates a T1 across an Ethernet
link. Rad, Telco, and Dragonwave all make good products at reasonable
prices. I have some extra ones if you want a deal.
-Matt
On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
I have a customer who wants to use our towers
11Mbps at 18 miles.
Travis
Microserv
Matt Liotta wrote:
Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was
worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax
or AN80 has worked perfect.
-Matt
On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
Wow. I have
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
2 megs is yesterday's news.
U-Verse is 18/1.5
FiOS is 50/20
Charter has 60/5
Comcast has 50/10
2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than
that.
Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the
Might want to get a license for that.
-Matt
On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards)
feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18
miles.
Travis
Microserv
Matt Liotta wrote:
According
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment
being poured
into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth
model and
asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed
per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to
complain.
-Matt
On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however.
In one thread in one list
--
From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed
per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax
1 - 100 of 683 matches
Mail list logo
