Re: [WISPA] Hosted PBX

2006-03-28 Thread KyWiFi LLC
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

2006-03-28 Thread Dylan Bouterse
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

2006-03-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
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

2006-03-28 Thread Brad Larson
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

2006-03-28 Thread Matt Glaves








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

2006-03-28 Thread Blair Davis
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

2006-03-28 Thread George

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

2006-03-28 Thread Jason Hensley
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

2006-03-28 Thread G.Villarini
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

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181



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 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 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

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

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

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

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

2006-03-28 Thread G.Villarini
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

2006-03-28 Thread Brad Larson
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

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181



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 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 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

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
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

2006-03-28 Thread chris cooper


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

2006-03-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

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

2006-03-28 Thread Steve Stroh


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

2006-03-28 Thread Larry A Weidig
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

2006-03-28 Thread Ron Wallace
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

2006-03-28 Thread Matt Liotta
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/