Re: [WISPA] Hosted PBX
Hi Chris, We have a 5-line hosted PBX system from Nuvio and it has worked flawlessly since day one. You can do so many kewl things nowadays with a hosted PBX system that I can't see any reasons for going with a non-hosted PBX system instead of a hosted PBX. If you would like to earn a commission from selling hosted PBX systems, contact me offlist. Sincerely, Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky http://www.KyWiFi.com http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com Phone: 859.274.4033 A Broadband Phone Internet Provider == Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69! No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com == - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:49 PM Subject: [WISPA] Hosted PBX Ive got a client that has a need for a 90 seat PBX system. E-911 isnt much of an issue as these are all just inter-office lines. Ive looked at Nuvio's hosted PBX but haven't actually put one to use. Any pointers good/bad on Hosted PBX systems? Thanks, Chris Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Hosted PBX
We rebrand Nuvio's products and have several happy nPBX customers. Dylan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peter R. Sent: Tue 3/28/2006 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hosted PBX Depends who is Hosting the PBX and what the PBX is. Broadsoft is the industry leader in fully featured softswitchs. There are a few VoIP Providers that have been able to fully utilize the power of Asterisk for a Hosted PBX solution. The pros are that Hosted PBX has built in disaster recovery as long as the NOC where the PBX resides is disaster prepared. The cons are that if the data circuit goes, then the office is down for the day. Hosted PBX does require more bandwidth as voicemail, music on hold, and inter-office calls are streaming between the PBX and the offices on your network. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 or 985.240.4156 http://4isps.com http://4isps.com/ chris cooper wrote: Ive got a client that has a need for a 90 seat PBX system. E-911 isnt much of an issue as these are all just inter-office lines. Ive looked at Nuvio's hosted PBX but haven't actually put one to use. Any pointers good/bad on Hosted PBX systems? Thanks, Chris Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ winmail.dat-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
I don't think any of us are opposed to more efficient, and frankly, it seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a relatively short period of time. I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay. How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread *acceptance*? We're ALL deployers with the notion of build it, and they will come to a larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until they come, but in all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, is the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to WISP success. Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband by WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my contention. It remains so. The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's end cost barrier to start had to be minimal. They bought CPE by the millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of shoes.Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance. Which brings us full circle. How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the consumer?Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end. Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate... How do we get advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear which can be deployed at cost points that win the acceptance war? It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this point. I am convinced that in 10 years, we're going to be offering today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even considered feasible yet. But only, and ONLY if we figure out how to become sufficiently large numbers of acceptance to be 'ubiquitous'. This is NOT going to happen with $400 CPE at a residence. Nor at $300. Nolt at $200. Maybe not at $150.At least not without some very interesting funding that's not interested in a return... So how do we make that leap? I don't have the answer. But I have certainly had the conversation with people who've decided what thier strategy is. For some, it's do whatever it takes to get the customer, even if it means trash end gear. Others (including me) have gone for a bit higher road. Others, seek the deep pockets funding first. Each has varying levels of success, but at least some of every approach have succeeded. Frankly, I don't know how we're going to get such great technology at Walmart prices... But I do know that if we don't, we're not going to be around in the future, because at least the cable and telco industries already have demonstrated they can get good acceptance at thier prices. Frankly, I don't know how the FCC views this. Thier attitude toward 3650 seemed to indicate a realization of what I've stated above. Maybe not. Heck, I don't even know if the majority of us even have this idea in mind in the first place. Are we prepared for 60 to 70% acceptance rates in our defined areas of deployment? Can we actually install that fast? If we can, can we actually finance it?DSL turning up in a town means that they're prepared for 20 to 40% acceptance. Often within less than a year. Those, I believe, are the factors for ubiquitous deployment - the kind the FCC, at least, seems to have in mind. I think laying out this roadmap, this realization, to them, would be not only wise, but mandatory. They need to understand the tools of the first, middle, and last mile of connectivity from our standpoint. I'm sure that the c able and telco operators have done this. We've certainly done some of it, but as fuzzy as many of us are on the concept of ubiquitous acceptance vs ubiquitous deployment, I have to wonder if our message is confused. heck, my own thinking changes regularly enough for me to feel fatigued at times. I read the comments about how we should not talk about only 50 mhz. I agree, technically. A tremendous amount can be done in 50mhz. But can it be done with the funding provided by an acceptable to the point of ubiquitous service?Cellular took... errmmm, what? 15 years? TV.. is what, on only it's 2nd generation in over 50 years? Thus, I disagree, philosophically. We need either the chicken or
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 2
Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the mark. Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously they have the deeper pockets. The whole reason I brought the word efficient up was because many WISP's believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air! Let's not waste it or look foolish.. like Steve Stroh said, So, stating only 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much empathy at the FCC. Brad -Original Message- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I don't think any of us are opposed to more efficient, and frankly, it seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a relatively short period of time. I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay. How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread *acceptance*? We're ALL deployers with the notion of build it, and they will come to a larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until they come, but in all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, is the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to WISP success. Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband by WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my contention. It remains so. The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's end cost barrier to start had to be minimal. They bought CPE by the millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of shoes.Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance. Which brings us full circle. How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the consumer?Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end. Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate... How do we get advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear which can be deployed at cost points that win the acceptance war? It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this point. I am convinced that in 10 years, we're going to be offering today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even considered feasible yet. But only, and ONLY if we figure out how to become sufficiently large numbers of acceptance to be 'ubiquitous'. This is NOT going to happen with $400 CPE at a residence. Nor at $300. Nolt at $200. Maybe not at $150.At least not without some very interesting funding that's not interested in a return... So how do we make that leap? I don't have the answer. But I have certainly had the conversation with people who've decided what thier strategy is. For some, it's do whatever it takes to get the customer, even if it means trash end gear. Others (including me) have gone for a bit higher road. Others, seek the deep pockets funding first. Each has varying levels of success, but at least some of every approach have succeeded. Frankly, I don't know how we're going to get such great technology at Walmart prices... But I do know that if we don't, we're not going to be around in the future, because at least the cable and telco industries already have demonstrated they can get good acceptance at thier prices. Frankly, I don't know how the FCC views this. Thier attitude toward 3650 seemed to indicate a realization of what I've stated above. Maybe not. Heck, I don't even know if the majority of us even have this idea in mind in the first place. Are we prepared for 60 to 70% acceptance rates in our defined areas of deployment? Can we actually install that fast? If we can, can we actually finance it?DSL turning up in a town means that they're prepared for 20 to 40% acceptance. Often within less than a year. Those, I believe, are the factors for ubiquitous deployment -
RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
Im not stuck in the 1950s. Im not looking for vacuum tubes and 100lb power supplies to justify my purchases. I could go to a number of other vendors and get the same 802.11a setup for $700 or less. The pictures speak volumes and it seems a fair number of the subscribers on this list got a lot of information on the product from the pictures alone. Others asked for my list and I sent it. I dont need Airaya suing me, so Ill let their hardware do the talking. I know for a fact I have cost them a number of future sales based the responses Im receiving from other members who were considering their product for future deployments. I sent you the same list of 15 or so items so you can make your own call. Here is one that I really love: https://secure.airaya.com/proddetail.asp?prod=AI108-4958-O-050 http://www.connectronics.com/airaya/index.html http://shop.wirelessguys.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.346/it.A/id.2395/.f Notice where it says AES encryption? Its listed on every PDF and vendor page I have seen for the unit. It was a deciding factor in my selection of this unit. It will be a really great feature when it is actually implemented. You get WEP for now. Would have been nice if there was an asterisk there telling you AES Support Coming in Quarter 3 2006. Matt From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Times are changing. If you want devices with lots of chips and blinky lights you'll have to pay extra. Everything it done at the board level these days. And everyone is using the same basic chip set these days. Airaya writes their own mac level firmware for them. I have 4 links. 2 of the original version (prior to what you've got there) give me a little bit of trouble on a tough link (fresnel zone). The new radios haven't skipped a beat though. I love my Airaya radios. They've been a great value. I'm curious, you've not said why you don't like them. Is there something about the performance? Software? Setup? Gotta be something other than what's in those pics. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them J If youre interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG thanks, matt From: Matt Glaves Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PM To: 'wireless@wispa.org' Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway J I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
I have little need of more microwave spectrum. I need spectrum in the low UHF or high VHF bands to get thru these trees. I think many, if not most, rural WISP's would agree with me. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs have every intention of making full use of any of these unused television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we will make sure we do no harm. The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern communications to every citizen. Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the available channels are largely unused for any purpose. Even channels that are utilized in a given
Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
Thanks matt and larry. I have a 2512 procurve that we like and a Dell switch as well. Who makes the Dell switches for Dell? Guess what I really want is to make sure that those little voice packets get the priority :) George Matt Liotta wrote: We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by the VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of doing the right thing with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch we have looked at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. We've been happy with Dell switchs for example. -Matt George Rogato wrote: I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount of packet per second and has qos for voip. Cost isn't an issue. Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
Yes, the Tranzeos are very similar on the inside. I can post / send pics if anyone is interested. Had a tower go down that demolished a TR-5a and a TR-6000. - Original Message - From: G.Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:59 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Looks like a dlink or netgear 5ghz ap... the tranzeos would be similar Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up That's an Atheros chipset on the PCB but what type of PCB is it? The model # in the pics looks like 8WAPD15_5A1 but Google.com doesn't turn anything up on it. Looks like a homebrew solution IMO. -Shannon - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them :-) If you're interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG thanks, matt _ From: Matt Glaves Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PM To: 'wireless@wispa.org' Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully - although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway :-) I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
The only diff is that tranzeo are way less expensive so... it isn't that bad Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Yes, the Tranzeos are very similar on the inside. I can post / send pics if anyone is interested. Had a tower go down that demolished a TR-5a and a TR-6000. - Original Message - From: G.Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:59 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Looks like a dlink or netgear 5ghz ap... the tranzeos would be similar Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up That's an Atheros chipset on the PCB but what type of PCB is it? The model # in the pics looks like 8WAPD15_5A1 but Google.com doesn't turn anything up on it. Looks like a homebrew solution IMO. -Shannon - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them :-) If you're interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG thanks, matt _ From: Matt Glaves Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PM To: 'wireless@wispa.org' Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully - although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway :-) I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
Times are changing. If you want devices with lots of chips and blinky lights you'll have to pay extra. Everything it done at the board level these days. And everyone is using the same basic chip set these days. Airaya writes their own mac level firmware for them. I have 4 links. 2 of the original version (prior to what you've got there) give me a little bit of trouble on a tough link (fresnel zone). The new radios haven't skipped a beat though. I love my Airaya radios. They've been a great value. I'm curious, you've not said why you don't like them. Is there something about the performance? Software? Setup? Gotta be something other than what's in those pics. laters, Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them J If youre interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG thanks, matt From: Matt Glaves Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PMTo: 'wireless@wispa.org'Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway J I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs have every intention of making full use of any of these unused television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we will make sure we do no harm. The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern communications to every citizen. Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the available channels are largely unused for any purpose. Even channels that are utilized in a given market are usually received by viewers via cable or satellite, negating the importance of the use of the spectrum for over the air television reception. Over the air television is now little more than a glorified licensing database system where licenses are used more to lock a market area for an operator than they are to serve viewer's needs. The reality is that
[WISPA] USF fund reform
Hi All, Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee. Thought you guys would like a peek at it first. WISPA USF Reform Position Paper WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. The goals for USF should be clarified. Are laptops for kids part of the program goals? Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal? Is this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program otherwise leave it as is? Or does Congress want to see substantial changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle innovation? WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to their own. Without government tweaking. USF should be canceled completely. If a real need for outside funding in regions or small pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case basis. At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its cost based fee structure encourages abuse. An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, Washington. In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've been told) of $600,000. Even at the time, the cost of a microwave replacement with more capacity would have been half or less. This is for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere. The telco is now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to other areas. This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher. This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut. Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms. We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and would not likely survive without them. Leaving such business practices in place permanently is not good public policy though. WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be instituted. Expand the program to include all communications companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure. Once that system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though. If it doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the results of the network they built. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or construction. The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit line item for companies but rather be a short term capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company standing (or not) on its own two feet at a set specific date. We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient ones would survive. If, after USF was discontinued some areas were left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be addressed under some more targeted program. Funds should be collected and distributed based on customers serviced. This would help prevent speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that have already stepped up to the plate. Tying fund distribution with the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market data availability. WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed. We don't believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program. We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is distributed. The E-Rate program excludes almost all entrepreneurial providers. In some areas the local WISP offers greater service levels for less cost than the local hospital or school is paying via the E-Rate programs. We're not allowed to service those portions of the account that we could take care of because we don't have CLEC status or can't offer all services. It seems to us that a complicated mechanism to compute pay in and pay out isn't needed or wanted at this time. We propose that the current contributions simply be expanded to any broadband provider in any area that the incumbent currently contributes. And in any area where USF funds are distributed all providers be given equal shares based on customer base. And one customer equals one share. No company should get more money for more services. This would slow down the convergence of services into increasingly efficient networks in rural markets. This model should encourage both competition and a shift from high cost to low cost network
RE: Re[2]: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
No picat5 ;-( got any ? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry at Mutual Data Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re[2]: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hello G.Villarini, They used to be Accton pcb assemblies. Radiolan is similar( same?) equipment. Find any PICAT5's yet? Funny how they all disappeared. Barry Tuesday, March 28, 2006, 4:59:58 AM, you wrote: GV Looks like a dlink or netgear 5ghz ap... the tranzeos would be similar GV Gino A. Villarini, GV Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. GV [EMAIL PROTECTED] GV www.aeronetpr.com GV 787.273.4143 GV -Original Message- GV From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GV [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On GV Behalf Of KyWiFi LLC GV Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:49 AM GV To: WISPA General List GV Subject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up GV That's an Atheros chipset on the PCB but what type of GV PCB is it? The model # in the pics looks like 8WAPD15_5A1 GV but Google.com doesn't turn anything up on it. Looks like a GV homebrew solution IMO. GV -Shannon GV - Original Message - GV From: Matt Glaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] GV To: wireless@wispa.org GV Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:46 PM GV Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up GV Hey Folks, GV Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a GV few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give GV them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our GV vendors. In short, I hate them :-) If you're interested in why, feel GV free to hit me off list.. GV We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I GV cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share GV with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. GV http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG GV http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG GV thanks, GV matt GV _ GV From: Matt Glaves GV Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PM GV To: 'wireless@wispa.org' GV Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 GV I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying GV their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to GV building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to GV know plenty of you are using it successfully - although I sure wish I GV could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a GV message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway :-) GV I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very GV short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use GV Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar GV capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability GV and real world throughput would be great. GV Thanks, GV Matt GV GV GV -- GV WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org GV Subscribe/Unsubscribe: GV http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless GV Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ GV -- GV WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org GV Subscribe/Unsubscribe: GV http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless GV Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Best regards, Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 2
I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally efficient systems with what we get for free... -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:02 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs have every intention of making full use of any of these unused television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we will make sure we do no harm. The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern communications to every citizen. Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the available
Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up
That gear is still 802.11 based. So interference susceptibility is higher. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: G.Villarini To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:15 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up I just think paying what the Airaya cost is not worth what it really is, where a Tranzeo or similar based 802.11a gear can be had cheaper Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:38 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Times are changing. If you want devices with lots of chips and blinky lights you'll have to pay extra. Everything it done at the board level these days. And everyone is using the same basic chip set these days. Airaya writes their own mac level firmware for them. I have 4 links. 2 of the original version (prior to what you've got there) give me a little bit of trouble on a tough link (fresnel zone). The new radios haven't skipped a beat though. I love my Airaya radios. They've been a great value. I'm curious, you've not said why you don't like them. Is there something about the performance? Software? Setup? Gotta be something other than what's in those pics. laters, Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Glaves To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: [WISPA] RE: Solectek Skyway 7000 -- Follow Up Hey Folks, Last month I posted to the list asking about low cost 5Ghz bridges and a few folks responded that I should check out Airaya. I decided to give them a try based on some really excellent discounts from one of our vendors. In short, I hate them J If youre interested in why, feel free to hit me off list.. We bought two complete links and before installing the first one I cracked it open and took a picture of its high tech innards to share with this list. I hope this helps those looking at sub $3k PTP bridges. http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0714.JPG http://www.pinn.net/~glaves/DSCN0712.JPG thanks, matt From: Matt Glaves Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:50 PMTo: 'wireless@wispa.org'Subject: Solectek Skyway 7000 I have never used the Solectek equipment and am looking at either trying their Skyway 7101 or the Trango Atlas for some short building to building links. I have seen enough favorable posts about the Atlas to know plenty of you are using it successfully although I sure wish I could get one of their sales folks to return a phone call. Leave a message about buying 250 CPEs and no one calls back Anyway J I would like to get opinions on the Skyway 7000. This would be for very short .5 mile links between buildings. We would normally use Terabeam/Proxim systems but are looking for alternatives with similar capabilities and 20-40% lower cost. Any info/opinions on reliability and real world throughput would be great. Thanks, Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally efficient systems with what we get for free... -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:02 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that
[WISPA] Hosted PBX
Ive got a client that has a need for a 90 seat PBX system. E-911 isnt much of an issue as these are all just inter-office lines. Ive looked at Nuvio's hosted PBX but haven't actually put one to use. Any pointers good/bad on Hosted PBX systems? Thanks, Chris Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2
Could you say something that looks a bit like this: 3650 is unlikely to be a wide-spread last mile distribution spectrum because manufacturers are unlikely to develop an array cost-effective end user solutions for only 50 mhz of contiguous spectrum. Instead, it will effectively become a middle mile, with single point solutions adapted from other licensed or unlicensed spectrum, effectively becoming backbone and infrastructure, rather than last mile distribution. While an important asset in the hands of providers, it, in itself, is not possible to be that ubitquitous last mile. Does that perspective seem accurate and more diplomatic? North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2 Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally efficient systems with what we get for free... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted. 5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz. Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology. So, stating only 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much empathy at the FCC. FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the WHOLE TV band is: Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments. Thanks, Steve On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
We have been real happy with the HP ProCurve series of switches. The 2512 would probably do what you are looking for. Fully managed, qos, 4.8 mpps and lifetime warranty. Hope that helps. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount of packet per second and has qos for voip. Cost isn't an issue. Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Yes, Yes i would like to have groups of 3, 6 MHz channels right about 518-580 MHz, boy would that smoke.-Original Message-From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 02:59 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted.5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz.Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology.So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC.FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is:Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHzChannels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHzTotal 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments.Thanks,SteveOn Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam---Steve Stroh425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by the VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of doing the right thing with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch we have looked at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. We've been happy with Dell switchs for example. -Matt George Rogato wrote: I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount of packet per second and has qos for voip. Cost isn't an issue. Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/