Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
- Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON
Ken I will be there too. John Scrivner wrote: I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ISPCON
We'll be there...booth 501 Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON Ken I will be there too. John Scrivner wrote: I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? --- --- -- 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] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is doing. Many thanks, Scriv Paul Hendry wrote: Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
Hello John, I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is doing. Many thanks, Scriv There will be a demo of this at the MUM US meeting. John www.mikrotik.com Paul Hendry wrote: Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- 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] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
I'll see what I can do but it's only in the lab at present. I'm not sure a public address would be any help as it relies on all your web traffic being transparently proxied through the MT. Once a pre-defined timer expires the MT would then send a pop-up to the end users when they next request (at least I think that's the theory). It should also block all traffic until the end user has seen the advert so I'm wondering if this would have problems with users running pop-up blockers. John? Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: 18 April 2006 13:18 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is doing. Many thanks, Scriv Paul Hendry wrote: Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone Hiring?
I wish I had the foundation ( $ ) to do so. I have one in my back yard that is for sale right now. 1000 sq. miles of coverage, but it isn't cheap and the owner already wants way more than what its worth. It has to be rebuilt/ updated with some modern equipment and he has a weird/ varied customer base. Anyone wannabe my partner or donate to the newly founded buy Mike a WISP fund LOL Thanks for the best wishes, if you hear of anything or anyone feel free to pass my name and contact info on. The work doesn't necessarily need to be full time. I am willing to work on a part time or project to project basis for anyone in the country that needs help with their network as long as they are willing to cover my expenses my fees are negotiable. If not I charge industry standard pricing. Regards, Mike -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone Hiring?
I wish I had the foundation ( $ ) to do so. I have one in my back yard that is for sale right now. 1000 sq. miles of coverage, but it isn't cheap and the owner already wants way more than what its worth. It has to be rebuilt/ updated with some modern equipment and he has a weird/ varied customer base. Anyone wannabe my partner or donate to the newly founded buy Mike a WISP fund LOL Thanks for the best wishes, if you hear of anything or anyone feel free to pass my name and contact info on. The work doesn't necessarily need to be full time. I am willing to work on a part time or project to project basis for anyone in the country that needs help with their network as long as they are willing to cover my expenses my fees are negotiable. If not I charge industry standard pricing. Regards, Mike -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's]
He must share a t1 with 12 other tenants and its barely faster than dialup? If I had to buy a t1 for every 12 broadband subscribers, I would go broke! Someone needs to manage that t1 or clean viruses on 13 computers, or something.. pd John Scrivner wrote: Can someone in the Chicago area please serve this guy? If you get him a wireless connection please let me know and I will have a press release prepared and sent out. Thanks, Scriv PS. If you are in Illinois and have not done so yet, please join the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email list server for Illinois specific information. http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/illinois Original Message Subject: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:18:16 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From Crain’s Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business By Julie Johnsson April 16, 2006 Even the cheapest DSL service is out of Steve Zaransky's reach. The line providing high-speed Internet access from ATT Inc. stops 600 yards short of his company, Airways Digital Media. Comcast Corp. doesn't serve his neighborhood, an industrial corridor on the city's Far Northwest Side. Broadband remains elusive for some Chicagoans living or working in industrial areas — as Mr. Zaransky learned when he moved his three-employee Web development firm from the West Loop last summer. I just assumed that anywhere in the city, you'd be able to get broadband, he says. That's not the case. Illinois ranks 21st nationally for broadband lines per capita, trailing California, Massachusetts and even sparsely populated Nevada and Alaska. In a world of instant information, that's a serious disadvantage for small business owners like Mr. Zaransky, who can't afford the T-1 lines larger companies use to tap into the Internet. It creates a struggle to do business here, rather than making it simple. It doesn't bode well for economic development, says Janita Tucker, executive director of the Peterson Pulaski Business and Industrial Council, which represents 22 businesses employing about 2,000 people in the industrial corridor including Mr. Zaransky's business. Most of them don't have access to digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable modem service, she says. That's ironic in a city that boasts one of the richest fiber networks in the country. Illinois had 1.85 million high-speed Internet lines as of June 30, the fifth-highest total of any state, according to new Federal Communications Commission data. Much of that broadband is clustered in downtown Chicago, a major Internet hub. However, gaps in the network are a problem elsewhere, leaving Illinois with one broadband connection for every 6.70 residents, according to an analysis by Crain's that compared the FCC tally of broadband lines to population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. The District of Columbia and Connecticut, with the best coverage nationally, have broadband connections for every 4.52 and 4.97 residents, respectively. We do have large areas of the city and many suburban areas that don't have basic broadband availability, says Scott Goldstein, vice-president for policy and planning at the Metropolitan Planning Council. All sectors of the economy are going high-tech, not just large companies. That's where Chicago needs to compete. The problem is a hangover from the 1990s, when Chicago's dominant phone and cable companies were slow to upgrade networks that were later acquired by ATT (formerly known as SBC Communications Inc.) and Comcast. NO RESIDENCES, NO COVERAGE Philadelphia cable giant Comcast has made cable modem available to about 99% of homes in its Northern Illinois service area, but it doesn't provide service to office parks and industrial areas where there are no residences, a spokeswoman says. DSL service, provided by phone companies, reached only 77% of Illinois phone customers as of June 30, 2005, according to federal data. In Florida, the state with the widest DSL availability, some 85% of customers could hook into the service as of mid-2005. New York's DSL network reached 81% of the state. An ATT spokesman says 80% of its Illinois customers had access to DSL by the end of 2005. He can't say when the company's DSL coverage will approach 100%. Our goal is to get to these areas as soon as we can, and we're working at it. He says the network will reach Mr. Zaransky's neighborhood this year. Texas-based ATT also plans to begin wiring area homes for fiber-optic lines capable of providing television programming and ultra-fast Internet service later this year. State and city of Chicago officials acknowledge broadband coverage is a problem, but they have been slow to find solutions. The Illinois Broadband Task Force, established by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is drawing up plans to study service gaps and create an entity to provide broadband in underserved areas. Chicago, meanwhile,
Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
If the ad is blocked by a pop-up blocker the user sees an empty page with a link to the ad and has to click on the link before he can continue on to the the requested page. - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I'll see what I can do but it's only in the lab at present. I'm not sure a public address would be any help as it relies on all your web traffic being transparently proxied through the MT. Once a pre-defined timer expires the MT would then send a pop-up to the end users when they next request (at least I think that's the theory). It should also block all traffic until the end user has seen the advert so I'm wondering if this would have problems with users running pop-up blockers. John? Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: 18 April 2006 13:18 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is doing. Many thanks, Scriv Paul Hendry wrote: Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- 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] ISPCON
Anybody know where/when the fall event is? chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
I take it that that's the radvert.htm page. How long have you been running it and have you had any issues? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 14:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature If the ad is blocked by a pop-up blocker the user sees an empty page with a link to the ad and has to click on the link before he can continue on to the the requested page. - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I'll see what I can do but it's only in the lab at present. I'm not sure a public address would be any help as it relies on all your web traffic being transparently proxied through the MT. Once a pre-defined timer expires the MT would then send a pop-up to the end users when they next request (at least I think that's the theory). It should also block all traffic until the end user has seen the advert so I'm wondering if this would have problems with users running pop-up blockers. John? Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: 18 April 2006 13:18 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble visualizing exactly what it is doing. Many thanks, Scriv Paul Hendry wrote: Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brokers / Master Agents for Wireless ?
Sorry about that! This was supposed to be off-list. Peter R. wrote: Rick, This can be a good thing. Referral programs can be great. I set up compensation plans and referral programs for ISPs. I also am a sales agent for 20+ companies (so I have an idea what the industry averages are). Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm Rick Smith wrote: Anyone work with a Master Agent for selling their services ? I've been approached by someone in the t-1 / dsl resale arena that would like to get quotes on addresses from wireless guys (US!) first... Would this be the arena to ask for such qualifications or should we start up another list ? R -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ISPCON
It will be in Santa Clara, November 7-9. BTW, if anyone would like free floor passes, or a $100 discount off of the full conference pass, you can get that here. It's for the Baltimore show in May. http://www.imagestream.com/ISPCON-ImageStream.pdf Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:43 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Anybody know where/when the fall event is? chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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] Charles Wu email ?
Title: Charles Wu email ? Charles whats you email, I lost my drive new laptop Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small businessfrom Crain's]
FWIW -- there is a WISP in contact with the Lt Governor's Office and Crain's about servicing this customer (they have a tower ~ 4 miles from the physical location) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small businessfrom Crain's] He must share a t1 with 12 other tenants and its barely faster than dialup? If I had to buy a t1 for every 12 broadband subscribers, I would go broke! Someone needs to manage that t1 or clean viruses on 13 computers, or something.. pd John Scrivner wrote: Can someone in the Chicago area please serve this guy? If you get him a wireless connection please let me know and I will have a press release prepared and sent out. Thanks, Scriv PS. If you are in Illinois and have not done so yet, please join the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email list server for Illinois specific information. http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/illinois Original Message Subject: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:18:16 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From Crain's Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business By Julie Johnsson April 16, 2006 Even the cheapest DSL service is out of Steve Zaransky's reach. The line providing high-speed Internet access from ATT Inc. stops 600 yards short of his company, Airways Digital Media. Comcast Corp. doesn't serve his neighborhood, an industrial corridor on the city's Far Northwest Side. Broadband remains elusive for some Chicagoans living or working in industrial areas - as Mr. Zaransky learned when he moved his three-employee Web development firm from the West Loop last summer. I just assumed that anywhere in the city, you'd be able to get broadband, he says. That's not the case. Illinois ranks 21st nationally for broadband lines per capita, trailing California, Massachusetts and even sparsely populated Nevada and Alaska. In a world of instant information, that's a serious disadvantage for small business owners like Mr. Zaransky, who can't afford the T-1 lines larger companies use to tap into the Internet. It creates a struggle to do business here, rather than making it simple. It doesn't bode well for economic development, says Janita Tucker, executive director of the Peterson Pulaski Business and Industrial Council, which represents 22 businesses employing about 2,000 people in the industrial corridor including Mr. Zaransky's business. Most of them don't have access to digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable modem service, she says. That's ironic in a city that boasts one of the richest fiber networks in the country. Illinois had 1.85 million high-speed Internet lines as of June 30, the fifth-highest total of any state, according to new Federal Communications Commission data. Much of that broadband is clustered in downtown Chicago, a major Internet hub. However, gaps in the network are a problem elsewhere, leaving Illinois with one broadband connection for every 6.70 residents, according to an analysis by Crain's that compared the FCC tally of broadband lines to population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. The District of Columbia and Connecticut, with the best coverage nationally, have broadband connections for every 4.52 and 4.97 residents, respectively. We do have large areas of the city and many suburban areas that don't have basic broadband availability, says Scott Goldstein, vice-president for policy and planning at the Metropolitan Planning Council. All sectors of the economy are going high-tech, not just large companies. That's where Chicago needs to compete. The problem is a hangover from the 1990s, when Chicago's dominant phone and cable companies were slow to upgrade networks that were later acquired by ATT (formerly known as SBC Communications Inc.) and Comcast. NO RESIDENCES, NO COVERAGE Philadelphia cable giant Comcast has made cable modem available to about 99% of homes in its Northern Illinois service area, but it doesn't provide service to office parks and industrial areas where there are no residences, a spokeswoman says. DSL service, provided by phone companies, reached only 77% of Illinois phone customers as of June 30, 2005, according to federal data. In Florida, the state with the widest DSL availability, some 85% of customers could hook into the service as of mid-2005. New York's DSL network reached 81% of the state. An ATT spokesman says 80% of its Illinois customers had access to DSL by the end of 2005. He can't say when the company's DSL coverage will approach 100%. Our goal is to get to these areas as soon as we can, and we're working at it. He says
RE: [WISPA] Charles Wu email ?
Title: Message [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. VillariniSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:32 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: [WISPA] Charles Wu email ? Charles whats you email, I lost my drive new laptop Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first, so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I would.UL Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around it: 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances, and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz. 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only: The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs to be broadened. 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed: The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air. The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9 months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16 device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG. It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be. Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL WiMAX as it exists today. 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access: Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging. What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we are not talking about sub-$200 devices. 5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE: Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world. 6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of 802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005: While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to 802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big RD money is at now and vendors planning to participate in the main WiMAX market (the 802.16e-2005 world) have to invest to stay ahead. This makes 802.16-2004, and all the profiles that go along with it, including the UL profiles, a lesser priority, at
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Sorry, I meant to say NOT scrambling to build residential UL WiMAX CPE. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:50 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first, so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I would.UL Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around it: 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances, and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz. 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only: The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs to be broadened. 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed: The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air. The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9 months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16 device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG. It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be. Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL WiMAX as it exists today. 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access: Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging. What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we are not talking about sub-$200 devices. 5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE: Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world. 6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of 802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005: While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to 802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big RD money is at now
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
GREAT post Patrick! Thank you so very much for it. This is one of the reasons why I'm so proud of WISPA. We're attracting the cream of the WISP crop. As operators and distributors and manufacturers. I really hope we continue to grow in these well thought out, honest directions. Having said that, it looks to me like you are saying that there's a WiMAX group that's taking on the contention based issue put forth by the FCC in the 3650 report and order. Please tell me I DO get to have my cake and eat it too! (Contention based requirements SHOULD give us quite a bit of interference protection vs. current rule sets AND the cost basis of unlicensed bands.) Enquiring minds want to know! Great to have you aboard 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: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first, so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I would.UL Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around it: 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances, and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz. 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only: The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs to be broadened. 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed: The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air. The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9 months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16 device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG. It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be. Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL WiMAX as it exists today. 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access: Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging. What does this mean? This means
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: Wow - this is by far the most enlightening piece I've ever read on the WiMax market. Thanks a lot! So who really cares about WiMax for backhaul? So what if I can build links with ends from different vendors? Won't proprietary protocols win (technically) if they aren't limited by requirements to operate within a standard? Time to look into licensing for mobile! Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISPCON
I wish I were going! Jon is putting on a really good show. Decent wireless tracks and a TON of other isp related seminars and vendors. Sometimes we forget that the wireless part is only a small part of what makes a wisp a wisp. Going to these larger more diverse shows is a very healthy thing at least every couple of years. 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: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? -- 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] ISPCON
Fall event is usually in San Jose. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:43 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Anybody know where/when the fall event is? chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISPCON I am planning to attend. Scriv Peter R. wrote: Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006 -- 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] ISPCON
I'll be there of course. They got a great show planned again this season. I hope to see you all there. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:02 AM Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month? -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- 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] UL WiMAX update
Hi Marlon, Shouldn't you be planting wheat or something right about now or otherwise doing donuts with that combine of yours? :) Actually, I do not know of any group specifically doing that at the Forum. That said, there is a regulatory working group (led by Intel's Margaret LaBrecque) at the Forum. I do interface with them from time to time as you may suspect. Also, and we have discussed this quite a bit, the Commission did not intend to mandate specifically a contention-based protocol. They used the contention word because it best described what they were trying to get at, which is essentially some type of mechanism that enabled equipment to, without human intervention, get along in the contentious environment of UL. I know this as a matter of fact because I sat in the room with the folks that wrote the rules shortly after they published them and asked them the question point blank. By way of support of my insight, you might note that they Order also discusses WiMAX as something they supported (though not and never exclusively). In other words, the FCC tried to be accepting and neutral as it relates to either 802.11 or 802.16 or anything else. As you know, technical neutrality is something they are fond of these days. In general, people at the Commission will tell you that they were frustrated and felt left hanging as it relates to 3650MHz. They believe that the market did not give them enough guidance and they were taken aback by the storm of controversy that ensued from the published RO. In fact, they did not know that they were asking for things that were 180 degrees out of phase with each other (e.g. supporting some contention-like mechanism while also encouraging WiMAX). And today we have a new Commission under Chairman Martin. Much has changed. While Julie and Lauren are still there, guys like Muleta, Pepper, and Marcus have gone. I had Bryan Tramont, former FCC Chief of Staff under Powell, present to a group of folks recently (Scriv was there) and he said that the FCC is no closer now than last year in terms of resolving 3650MHz. In short, don't look for resolution anytime this year, except maybe...maybe...the end of the year at best. I also realize that many WISPs and others have been getting 24-month STAs. But folks need to know that those carry some risks in the sense that the testing done cannot be revenue generating services and nothing prevents the investment from being fully wasted if the FCC rules in some way the makes certain geographies licensed or certain parts of the allocation licensed. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update GREAT post Patrick! Thank you so very much for it. This is one of the reasons why I'm so proud of WISPA. We're attracting the cream of the WISP crop. As operators and distributors and manufacturers. I really hope we continue to grow in these well thought out, honest directions. Having said that, it looks to me like you are saying that there's a WiMAX group that's taking on the contention based issue put forth by the FCC in the 3650 report and order. Please tell me I DO get to have my cake and eat it too! (Contention based requirements SHOULD give us quite a bit of interference protection vs. current rule sets AND the cost basis of unlicensed bands.) Enquiring minds want to know! Great to have you aboard 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: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first, so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I would.UL Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around it: 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances, and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
You are likely correct to a large extent Dylan, and Redline, Orthogon (now owened by Moto), Ceragon, Stratex, ex-Western Multiplex, etc. ad nauseum made good business off that very thing. However, I expect that in certain segments of the market, WiMAX will hold sway as backhaul. Backhaul of what is the question. And the answer in my view is backhaul of things like security cameras, traffic systems, SCADA, mesh, etc., in other words, fixed devices at the edges and especially in the muni environment. The muni space lives off RFPs. RFPs are driven by consultants. Consultants don't like risks and tend not to be bleeding edge knowledgeableconsultant like standards. Ergo, most muni RFPs at some point will begin to specify WiMAX for the PMP backhaul. As well, I believe we will all see enterprise embracing WiMAX PMP to connect buildings, replacing those 5-8 years old 802.11b bridges that in place connecting remote sites in gazillions of places. They will embrace WiMAX because it is a standard, like they did Wi-Fi, and because it is designed for long range outdoor, unlike Wi-Fi, and because it is better for IP-rich environments emerging doing VoIP and video across the enterprise. The proprietary stuff will continue to be used at the backhaul heavily by carriers and WISPs - especially for their redundant licensed ring structures (for which they are so well suited). Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick: Wow - this is by far the most enlightening piece I've ever read on the WiMax market. Thanks a lot! So who really cares about WiMax for backhaul? So what if I can build links with ends from different vendors? Won't proprietary protocols win (technically) if they aren't limited by requirements to operate within a standard? Time to look into licensing for mobile! Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Mark, Not to belittle your opinion but many of my customers would say just the opposite in that they're actually saving money by deploying Alvarion. The cost of owning a network isn't based on cpe costs alone. Brad -Original Message- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 2:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP It is not financially feasible for a mainstream WISP, who is attempting to serve all types of internet customers to rely on BA for anything but specialized application., It's just too expensive. 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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:53 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's using our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on other WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're niche and not mainstream and there is some division is a real strech. Brad - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the only viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they were claiming almost a holier than thou behavior toward anyone stating another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home the WISP=Cheap mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical WISP operator and Alvarion. Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than niche market WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist. They have certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't make mainstream WISP last mile equipment. I have been expecting to see them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything. The ball's in thier court. 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! -- -- - -- 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] Ohio E-rate
Are there any Ohio Wisps here that have been hamstrung in the E-rate bidding process? In particular, Im interested in speaking with anyone that has been outbid by the local ITC/A-site. Hit me off list if you are interested. Chris Cooper Intelliwave, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] [Fwd: [DDN] Net Neutrality and AOL ...It Begins]
I was able to go to the Freedom to Connect conference earlier this month on behalf of WISPA. Net neutrality was one of the hot topics of the conference, but there was a lot of disagreement on how it should (or should not) be controlled. This email about the subject provides a decent understanding of the sort of thing that will start to happen over the next few years for users of telco and cable broadband services. This is a tough issue. On one hand, I don't really want to have any legislation out there that tells me how to run my network. On the other hand, I don't want to have my BACKBONE provider prioritizing or de-prioritizing traffic to my network according to who is paying THEM. Spam emails are just the tip of the iceberg. This one is going to get ugly real fast. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Original Message Subject:[DDN] Net Neutrality and AOL ...It Begins Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:22:14 -0500 From: Dave A. Chakrabarti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: CTCNet Chicago To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sascha Meinrath [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Craner [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gabriela [EMAIL PROTECTED] I received an email today from the EFF that really brought home to me how urgent this net neutrality debate really is. If you're like me, you've been thinking that it's important, but haven't really understood how or what you can do about it, or why it's so urgent...everything seems to be played out in political power circles at a relatively slow pace, while life here in Chicago has a million demands that I have to attend to that just seem much more immediate. That changed for me today. For those of you out of the loop with AOL's involvement in this: AOL has recently proposed a filtering system that allows corporate users to pay a fee to bypass someone's spam filtering. If you have an AOL account, this means that AOL can charge me to send you a mailing. Or it can ask the DDN to pay a fee to make sure these emails continue to get to you. It can send spam back to your inbox even though you don't want it there...because spammers tend to have a *lot* of money to spend if it means bypassing someone's spam filters. Now they've taken it to another level. If you send someone an email asking them to take a critical look at AOL's new policy, your email will be filtered out. That's right. If I want to email a friend of mine who happens to be using an AOL account, and I even mention a certain website, AOL will bounce the email back to me saying that user doesn't exist. You know what? Since this email contains AOL and filter and a bunch of other terms that look suspiciously like I might not be asking you to buy AOL stock, members of this email list *may not* receive this email. If I include the actual URL I'm talking about (a site designed to ask AOL users and others to ask the company not to move forward with this), it's *guaranteed* that members of this list will not receive that email. Or receive any other email from today, if they're receiving DDN list stuff in digest form. Someone at DDN is going to get a bunch of bouncebacks that look like those addresses don't work anymore...but wait, they do! They just don't work if you're trying to make people aware of what AOL is doing. So there it is...the first salvo in the net neutrality wars. Or perhaps the nth salvo, if you ask Sascha Meinrath or others who've been talking about this for months now. AOL is censoring its email service in a direct effort to control what information its users have access to...hoping to stifle debate on this in the process. Ironically, in doing so, I would think they've shot themselves in the foot. They're claiming this was an effort to protect their users from spam...but now those users are becoming aware that there is email they are not *allowed* to receive anymore which really does *not* look like spam. Some users have tested this by sending themselves email on this, to their AOL accounts, only to have them bounce. Presumably, we shouldn't think about this too hard either, or big brother will be angry with us. We might not get our shiny AOL CDs in the mail anymore. Seriously...what were they thinking? Couldn't they at least have built an intelligent filtering system that allowed users to bypass this filter when sending to themselves, or sending to previously-contacted email addresses...just something, so it might hamper their efforts, but not make it so blatantly obvious what the company is trying to do? Then they could at least *pretend* not to be the evil empire. How hard is it to stick a bunch of if-then logic gates in your filters to make things a little more subtle? I can only conclude that the company simply didn't see the point of taking those measures...they seem to work on the
[WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1145387747.htmMotorola has been rebranding OS backhauls - now they've bought the company! I wonder if Tropos is next .. and what their plans for the Orthogon Systems group are. Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
Begun the OFDM wars have. -Matt P.S. Motorola already tried to buy Tropos, but found they were too expense, which is why they bought Mesh Networks instead. Dylan Oliver wrote: http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1145387747.htm Motorola has been rebranding OS backhauls - now they've bought the company! I wonder if Tropos is next .. and what their plans for the Orthogon Systems group are. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
I wonder what Motorola will decide to do with Mesh. They appear to have three distinct platforms now: HotZone (rebranded Tropos), MOTOMESH (MeshNetworks; not Wi-Fi), and MEA. Or rather MEA radios are included in MOTOMESH 4-radio units? :: A Technical View Of MOTOMESHEvery MOTOMESH access point contains two standards-based 802.11 (Wi-Fi) radios and two of Motorola's widely acclaimed Mesh Enabled Architecture (MEA) mobile broadband radios. One set of Wi-Fi and MEA radios operate in the unlicensed 2.4GHz band, and one set operates in the licensed 4.9GHz public safety band.Oh, I get it (I think). MEA provides backhaul between mesh units, while the 802.11 serve the public. Anyone ever hear of how this platform actually performs? I wonder why Motorola isn't pushing these harder. Has Tropos so stolen the thunder they can't properly market their own solution? Canopy™ HotZone* is a dedicated solution for communities concerned primarily with improving public Internet access and eliminating the digital divide. Combining unlicensed standards-based WiFi radios and Canopy system backhaul to support the cost-effective deployment of wide area broadband wireless. HotZone solutions offer remarkable efficient and cost-effective public access capabilities. Click to see how it works. Motorola's MOTOMESH™ multi-radio broadband solution, whose architecture supports up to four radio (2.4 4.9 GHz) networks in a single access point, enables complete municipal-wide wireless connectivity for public access, public works and public safety. Motorola's Mesh Enable Architecture (MEA) technology is a private mobile broadband solution that delivers desktop applications into the field at highway speeds. The MEA network features Motorola's unique Multi-Hopping capabilities turning each mesh-enable radio into a router/repeater. As a result, every user makes the network stronger. * HotZone is powered by Tropos MetroMesh.Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
This is no surprise and was largely expected back when they began to OEM them back in January of 2005. No way they'll buy Tropos. Moto already bought Mesh Networks and currently fields a three-radio product for the public safety side on the muniwireless market. Earthlink is the one that has Moto and Tropos together; it is not Moto making the call to use tropos. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1145387747.htm Motorola has been rebranding OS backhauls - now they've bought the company! I wonder if Tropos is next .. and what their plans for the Orthogon Systems group are. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
Is the three-radio product you mention actually the four-radio product I referred to, or something else?On 4/18/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is no surprise and was largely expected back when they began to OEM them back in January of 2005. No way they'll buy Tropos. Moto already bought Mesh Networks and currently fields a three-radio product for the public safety side on the muniwireless market. Earthlink is the one that has Moto and Tropos together; it is not Moto making the call to use tropos.-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
Let's make it a 5 radio product J They have 2 groups selling into the PS space, their networking practice and their government practice. Sometimes they even compete against themselves. But they sure do bring lots of brand equity into the PS wireless battle, what with all those years selling two-way radios. For wonks, it is really fascinating following all the happenings in that space. And it gets even more interesting with the FCC's recent 700MHz NPRM. Moto has lots to gain if the FCC chooses to adopt a standard like SAM to promote interoperability. Lucent wants it to go CDMA so the can sell their EVDO. Both want some of the current wideband allocations reconfigured to include three 1.25MHz wide channels for mobile broadband. The FCC is asking for comments from the public on both the Moto and Lucent proposals, as well as their own ideas. Comment due date is, I recall, May 16 with rebuttals by June 16. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon Is the three-radio product you mention actually the four-radio product I referred to, or something else? On 4/18/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is no surprise and was largely expected back when they began to OEM them back in January of 2005. No way they'll buy Tropos. Moto already bought Mesh Networks and currently fields a three-radio product for the public safety side on the muniwireless market. Earthlink is the one that has Moto and Tropos together; it is not Moto making the call to use tropos. -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon
Got the proceeding numbers for those? thanks, marlon Patrick Leary wrote: Let's make it a 5 radio product J They have 2 groups selling into the PS space, their networking practice and their government practice. Sometimes they even compete against themselves. But they sure do bring lots of brand equity into the PS wireless battle, what with all those years selling two-way radios. For wonks, it is really fascinating following all the happenings in that space. And it gets even more interesting with the FCC's recent 700MHz NPRM. Moto has lots to gain if the FCC chooses to adopt a standard like SAM to promote interoperability. Lucent wants it to go CDMA so the can sell their EVDO. Both want some of the current wideband allocations reconfigured to include three 1.25MHz wide channels for mobile broadband. The FCC is asking for comments from the public on both the Moto and Lucent proposals, as well as their own ideas. Comment due date is, I recall, May 16 with rebuttals by June 16. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 *From:* Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:52 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] motorola buys orthogon Is the three-radio product you mention actually the four-radio product I referred to, or something else? On 4/18/06, *Patrick Leary* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is no surprise and was largely expected back when they began to OEM them back in January of 2005. No way they'll buy Tropos. Moto already bought Mesh Networks and currently fields a three-radio product for the public safety side on the muniwireless market. Earthlink is the one that has Moto and Tropos together; it is not Moto making the call to use tropos. -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LL -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
Is it possible to use this with transparent proxy without the hotspot? This would be a neat 'payment reminder' to those past due accounts by redirecting them to a 'please pay your bill' page every x-hours. We don't use hotspot but do use the transparent proxy. John I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the transparent proxy. Anyone tried this? Yes, it works with the transparent proxy. Just go to 'IP HotSpot User Profiles Profile Name Advertise' in Winbox. -- 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] do you use tranzeo?
I am trying to find out how many folks out there use low cost CPE like tranzeo. please hit me off list if you do. Best, Jeff -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] do you use tranzeo?
I've deployed 1500+ Tranzeos over the last four years. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeffrey Thomas wrote: I am trying to find out how many folks out there use low cost CPE like tranzeo. please hit me off list if you do. Best, Jeff --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] The Mikrotik Advertisement Feature
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Paul Hendry wrote: I'll see what I can do but it's only in the lab at present. I'm not sure a public address would be any help as it relies on all your web traffic being transparently proxied through the MT. Once a pre-defined timer expires the MT would then send a pop-up to the end users when they next request (at least I think that's the theory). It should also block all traffic until the end user has seen the advert so I'm wondering if this would have problems with users running pop-up blockers. John? It's not a popup. It delivers the page to the end user's browser directly. You are correct that transparent proxy is part of it. I can't say if it will log them out if they are not running a web-browser and cannot view the advertisement. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
That was a great answer Patrick. You should post more often. This is the information all wisps crave. What frequency is the mobile WIMAX? And what is the expected release dates. Thanks again George Patrick Leary wrote: Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first, so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I would.UL Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around it: 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances, and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz. 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only: The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs to be broadened. 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed: The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air. The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9 months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16 device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG. It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be. Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL WiMAX as it exists today. 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access: Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging. What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we are not talking about sub-$200 devices. 5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE: Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world. 6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of 802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005: While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to 802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big RD money is at now and
