RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
Rich, as I ended my message it is probably the ramblings of a pre-Carterphone decision mentality. However, were my mom alive, she could easily fall in love with $15 a month instead of $60 a month even if there were a slight latency and cellphone quality to the sound. My pop would have loved the e-mail at the office sending .WAV files of all the answering machine messages. I'm not so sure that a savvy provider couldn't set up a very sticky relationship with even the more modest tech-unsavvy folks. But, that's just me and my experience with my family. My sister is an archivist and brother a starving artist...in love with what they discovered. But, they're only in their '60s and still young. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Very cool. I love gadgets too ... got'ta play with them all. Rich, I don't agree. But I've no idea what I said that you disagree with. What I said was I don't see VoIP providing advanced services that the consumer marketplace as a whole is going to pick-up (for example, the way caller-id has ... everybody has it now). What I believe the consumer marketplace wants is talk minutes (disagreeing with the post that started this thread ... which says VoIP is incorrectly competing as cheap minutes, while what they should be selling is advanced features). Tony replied: what about IP video-conferencing or multiple numbers. In the email you're disagreeing with I said: come on ... the general consumer isn't going to go for these in a big way. Is this what you're disagreeing with, because you use these features? I have a constant debate over how bright or technically savvy the average consumer is. There's a lot of bright people. But never make the mistake of presuming the people you deal with on the cutting-edge of broadband are representative of the general marketplace. It ain't so. It ain't even close. The fact that you use these advanced features is great. I bet a lot of people on this list do. I do. But a lot of the people on the list (especially those that work with residential consumers) can speak volumes from their experience. And (I might add) I bet those that subscribe to wireless broadband may be closer to the cutting-edge than to the general population. (scarey). Virtually everybody's got a phone. Rich - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Rich, I don't agree. My Lingo service is $20 a line, unlimited calling to Europe-US-Canada, and I use simultaneous ring to cell when I'm away, I use voicemail-to-Email (instantaneous) when I'm at the office or away, and use quite a few other features. My ATT line was 3 times that and no Europe (when you finally get the bill with universal sevice fees, taxes, etc.). I put my second line on Lingo...it's seldom used and pay $15 for 500 minutes which is rarely approached by even 1/2. It's hard to beat. And, I can take my tiny box to Budapest and have my home phone in the Kempinski hotel room. But, I don't have to because of simultaneous ring to my Skype-in number. Maybe it's just the fun of somebody who grew up before the Carterphone decision. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great. I love it, and use it myself. Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call just has an ordinary phone). Ya'never'know. But I wouldn't wager any money that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads. Just my opinion. On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again ... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. Didn't really interest me. But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one particular desk). Problem is with most residential and most small business is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere). Again, just my opinion. I don't see any VoIP killer-apps. It's just a phone that is at the moment offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Responses inline... - Original Message - *From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. I don't see the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE! Not according to what you reply below. Limiting P2P and prioritizing VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet. There is equal access.I limit the amount of data transferred. How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream. So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic? In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality. If VZ can't deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to deprioritize peer to peer traffic. Who is to say that P2P traffic is less important than VOIP? P2P works no matter jitter, latency, etc.VOIP does not. Even video has issues. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud? Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P traffic. This seems pretty arbitrary to me. Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest in my network. My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as well as your pages to load. Both can happen with QOS employed, no? Your web page loads no matter what. His VOIP phone needs specific network qualities to work right. I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making the statement as one of your customers. If I don't use VOIP, why should someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic? What if I as a provider feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P? I don't give a rip. I only care about the CUSTOMER wants. After all I am in the business of providing internet service not voice. What if I prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP bandwidth? Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP prioritization? I dunno. Why don't you ask them? How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access to content. Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video? My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack. They do, however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to not have my network make them NOT work properly. So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to blocks ports x, y and z. And what would you do if a customer requested those ports to be open on their network connection? Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my edge router? What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal access? What about outgoing or incoming email? Do I have to allow it all? Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to TimeWarner's IP blocks? Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP block that is continuously scanning your
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Good points Larry. I agree with your defining backbone and last mile rules and how there should be 2 different sets of standards. 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] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: taxes to get subsidized services they would not or could not buy if they were to pay the price voluntarily? 1) I think you are arguing for argument sake. 2) Have you read any of his book? He has data, PR, docs to prove his assertions. And who says that thier systems ACTUALLY perform as ... claimed? The same can be said perhaps for Your network. Muni BB is just a false promise and it's going to hurt us all. Muni fiber like UTOPIA has already proven to be a good thing. Iowa City is the case study for the economic advantages of fiber for a community. Muni wireless is a whole other ball of wax. And instead of arguing for fun you should be wondering (a) how Muni WiFi will affect your business and (b) do something about it. But then not everyone is action oriented, most are too busy talking to do anything. Heck, just in my tiny town of 275 homes, that would mean it would cost about 300K to deploy? That seems really, REALLY cheap. But even worse, at a 40% take rate, it would not provide anywhere NEAR enough revenue to make it viable unless the cost was at least 100 / mo. 1) ILEC or MSO look at a 10 or 15 year payback calculation. 2) The ARPU target is $150 per month. 3) Just goes to show that the ILECs make numbers up and who could audit their books to prove them liars? Bruce has tried. There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - geography, people are happy with dial-up, not everyone has access to a computer, libraries offer free access, people get online at work, yadda yadda. Doesn't take away from the fact that they are only building the network for TV - or we would still be stuck with 3MB DSL. And this is bad...how? Other than it provides political fodder for politicians, and rhetoric for activists, I simply can't see why this is any national concern. One is the e-commerce engine. Supposedly people with BB shop more. Tele-commuting, Home sourcing, small business development - all require BB penetration. There was a perception problem last year with the difference between BB deployment penetration. The whole Digital Divide - the haves and the have-nots. We have moved from an Industrial economy to a Knowledge Based economy. Do we have the infrastructure, education and workers in place for such an economy? These are just off the top of my head. SBC has already proven that at $17.99 people will move from dial-up to DSL. So is it that people don't want it or that consumers don't want to pay that much for it? And going back to geography, blah blah -- how is Canada 7th in the world? Isn't their demographics similar to ours? How about Iceland, Finland, Sweden, or Norway? http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0511/ Now that it is unregualted, why isn't BB in the top 30 Metros cheaper than in the suburbs? Why are we not matching Korea or Japan in BW served and pricing in at least the MSA's Lack of competition. No execution on promises from the ILECs. Before this decade is over, MSOs will have surpassed the ILECs in revenue, size, deployment and penetration. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
No such thing as middle ground in regulation. I actually think No Regulation at this point would be better than any of the plans proposed so far. And after compromises, it will just be a litigation fest like the TA96. - Peter Larry Yunker wrote: Dave, I can see your points and I agree that OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list. Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enable backbone providers of the internet to weed out the smaller providers by deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc. I think that the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality. Since the success of the internet has long been based on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I think the goal should be to prohibit backbone providers from discriminating based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic. This means that in an ideal scenario, the government would prevent the likes of L3/ATT/Verizon from even looking at the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone. They don't need to know what the traffic is. Rather, their business is to get that traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing capacity. They should not be positioned to decide WHO gets to have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time. If this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their competitors). I realize that taking this stance against Tiered-Access Internet forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will lead to true end-to-end QoS on the public internet. Yet, I'd rather have today's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather than tomorrow's internet monopolized by Ma-Bell. Please note: I think that last-mile providers ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary. If you want to block your own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or downloading movies that should be your prerogative. Perhaps you should be required to disclose this limited-access internet service to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your own policies regarding the traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS. I see no reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies. I figure it this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content to/from your clients, the clients usually have to opportunity to switch to another provider. IF you are the only provider of service in the area, then one could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers. The core policy reason to regulate backbone providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the globe without unnecessary limitations. This same policy reason does not apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet! The real question is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL difference. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
George, Regulation could not be put into effect that would define last-mile, middle mile and backbone. When I called by Congress Critter's office to ask about his position on NN, the bonehead staffer that answered the phone did not even know what that was! Most of the 500+ elected Congress Critters and many of their staffers have zero idea about technology. They can't regulate DSL one way and your private network another. ATT and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long before it becomes imminent. - Peter Matt, you are right on the money and just summed it all up in that one paragraph, in my opinion. It is true that most wisps that filter probably sell to the residential consumer market at low competitive prices. We as wisps have always understood our systems to offer a shared service. So it's in our best interest to handle our network the way we see fit. We should not be forced into any type of regulatory system that stops us from filtering, blocking or giving priority, or not to our customers. We as last mile providers need to have the leeway, but with restrictions. Now the middle mile, is another story. The answer to that is NO filtering, NO blocking, NO prioritizing. Just all of what we pay for, which is dedicated internet access without restrictions. After all the difference between the two is business models, one is selling wholesale commercial dedicated connections and the other a retail finished product. And it's not like we are buying a $1,000.00 connection and reselling it at a mark up. We are buying a $1,000.00 connection and reselling it for a mark down. Hence, over subscription. How far can we stretch our networks and what do we have to do to stretch it as far as we can. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book
SBC has already proven that at $17.99 people will move from dial-up to DSL. So is it that people don't want it or that consumers don't want to pay that much for it? It's like free pie and chips...who doesn't want free pie and chips..it's pie..and chips for free... Sorry, couldn't resist. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
my take (was Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality)
I personally think this whole net neutrality is a combination of much ado about nothing and the little guys not learning how to work together. Will the RBOCs be able to wield any real power against the major content companies of the world? No, they won't. But, what about the small operations? Simple, host their web presence with facilities that wield enough power to get around the RBOCs. Most web operations already do this whether they know it or not. For example, we peer with Cogent, Limelight, Google, etc. Almost every content operation with the exception of Yahoo is available through those peers and we are working on a peering agreement with Yahoo now. If the RBOCs want priority access for our eyeballs to these content operators they can keep on dreaming since the traffic never touches their networks. We are not alone BTW. Now I understand not every operation can enter into peering agreements with content companies or large operations like Cogent. Google alone requires 15Mbps of traffic destined to them from 2 geographically diverse locations. Of course, if many of the small players worked together their combined traffic would actually be interesting from a peering standpoint. I know people don't like to work together, but you are going to have learn it real soon or watch yourself get pushed around by the RBOCs. Think about where things would be now if 5 years ago all the CLECs decided to buy from each other instead of the RBOCs. I say to everyone on this list, if you are buying from a RBOC anything that you can buy elsewhere; do it! -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
ATT and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long before it becomes imminent. Where did the 17 month timeframe come from? AFAIK, without Net Neutrality legislation, there is nothing stopping the big guys from pulling the rug out from under the rest of us TODAY. If you are suggesting that they MUST peer because of a RFC or contract, you are mistaken. RFC's have no binding authority at law and contracts can and often are breached if the result of the breach will bring the breaching party a windfall. If there is one thing that was made abundently clear in Contracts class it is that there are no punitive damages in contracts sometimes it just makes sense to breach. If ATT can make billions in tiered-access charges by de-peering with the rest of the globe they will and they will do it as soon as they feel the time is right. No RFC and no contract will limit them. Until there is a LAW with real teeth prohibiting de-peering they can do whatever they want. (Real teeth = more than a grant to the FCC to investigate potential abuse. Oversight committees are useless without standards to uphold IMHO.) - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest in my network. My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as well as your pages to load. Both can happen with QOS employed, no? Your web page loads no matter what. His VOIP phone needs specific network qualities to work right. I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making the statement as one of your customers. If I don't use VOIP, why should someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic? Explain. My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack. They do, however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to not have my network make them NOT work properly. So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to blocks ports x, y and z. And what would you do if a customer requested those ports to be open on their network connection? The ones that have any idea about network security do. If a customer wanted wide open access without any port blocking, I guess I'd just do it. Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my edge router? What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal access? What about outgoing or incoming email? Do I have to allow it all? Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to TimeWarner's IP blocks? Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP block that is continuously scanning your network? If an IP block is disruptive to the network, I suppose I might. I have yet to block anything. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. I seriously doubt that. Why? If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on your network? Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with any of this, but about a third party being asked to pay to have a network's customers be able to access thier services. That is the arguments that are being bandied about by the pro net neutrality people. But net neutrality is not limited to content provider access. The FCC has already ruled once that an RBOC is not allowed to restrict access to VOIP services. It seems like WISPs respond to this with a yeah, sticking it to the big guy. But my thought is be careful what you wish for. If the FCC says an ISP (in this case an RBOC) is required to allow a specific type of traffic on their network (VOIP service). What is to stop them from doing the same for some other service with some other provider, say P2P traffic on your network? Again, this strays into the censor vs network operations.A customer reaching a competing VOIP service doesn't harm the network anymore than them reaching my own. But P2P running wide open tranferring many gigs a day DOES harm the network.Again, we're talking network operations vs allowing hosting, and what's described in my contract as abuse. Net neutrality is about giving regulatory control over your business to the FCC. Again, I see you trying to blur some lines that need to be drawn, not erased. QOS is to make my customer's phone work. Or his video work. You, as a web provider, have no interest and no claims on this relationship. Now, along comes Verizon or Quest, and comes to YOU as web provider and says pay up or we block our customer from your site, then I see a serious issue. I'm not talking about VZ going to yahoo, that is campaigning spin used by the pro net neutrality side of the issue. The heart of the issue in my opinion is VOIP traffic and soon streaming video. In your opinion.But I have yet to see this be an issue coming from the mouths of the big operators.They're just scanning the internet and looking for a way to tax the successful content or services. So IF there is any regulatory role in this... . It has to do with consumers finding themselves being restricted from access unless they or a third party contracts to make it available. Now, if ISP's are simply required to inform thier customers of what they block or deprioritize, then I have no problem with them doing so. If this was the case it would take care of itself. Someone will come along and offer equal access to all web providers and the people will flock to them for their service because they don't have to worry about what web sites they visit and then pick and ISP based on that. And that should be what we call net neutrality, not sane network operations. If providers
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. I disagree for several reasons. Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT be a double standard between Cable and Telcos. The reason is that Telcos and Cable Companmies are BOTH similar types of companies as far as monoply status, franchise, and/or goliath dominant player status (in volume). Wireless Broadband is NOT the same type of industry. Wireless- limited on spectrum. Wireless- limited on capacity (not infinately replicateable) Wireless- predominantly serves underserved areas. Wireless- predominantly newly installed and unsubsidized (although MUNI could changed that) Wireless- Full of minority (record low size) small providers. Laws need to protect consumer interests, to pass. Consumers want wireless providers and benefit from them. They want policies that will allow wireless providers to grow and succeed. Its jsut an education problem to teach people the justification of why the double standard should exist. Second double standards exist ALL the time in politics. The goal is to get the bill past, and to negotiate will all the people that potentially may protest the bill to keep it from passing. Politics promises exceptions for special interests to buy their support for a bill that will help a larger common good if passed. Its just like plea bargining, giving a small time criminal amnisty if they tetsify against the larger more evil criminal. Or its like the new high power rules for smart antennas, which actually were put i place to accommodate 1 manufacturer that had a smart antenna technology to bring to market. Basically rewards a company that has some unique contribution. In this case it was a smart antenna to reduce interference to others. Wireless has a unique donation. The abilty to be able to cost effectively serve little holes of underserved areas. Putting regulation on small wireless providers could seriously hinder their abilty to offer services without risk, and reduce deployments. Exceptions can be made, if they are jsutified. Thats how a bill gets made, every aspect of the bill is negotiated to meet everyone's interests. What isn;t allowed is rule limiting or burdening specific companies. I'm not asking to target a specifc comapny or a pecific compant to be excempt. I am asking for a technology to be exempt, a technology that has different characteristics and can be used by any provider to offer services. So is it really a double standard? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us that. For years, telephone companies have been heavily regulated while cable companies have not. DSL was subject to regulation. Cable was not. In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X Internet Supreme Court Decision. The FCC deregulated DSL and is working toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium. The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, broadband over powerlines,whatever you can think of --to be subject to the same rules and regulations. Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to cable and DSL and not to wirelessjust isn't realistic. We need to support that which is good for all broadband providers. If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that way. If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants to. Matt's network is Matt's network. He built it. He designed it. He can do with is as he wants. My network is my network. I built it. I designed it. I feel it is my right to do with is as I want. If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another service. Letsupply and demand and free-market economics decide who wins and who fails, not government. Don't let the government regulate what we do and how we do it. I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their way. According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and not likely to see any action this election year. Nonetheless, I'd like to know WISPA's position on this. This is an issue that, if passed, would have effects on many of WISPA's members. This is the type of issue
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Mac Thanks! Exactly what I needed! How is it going down there? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:47 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Dan, We have bought a lot of stuff from these folks and these adapters are really highly recommended and have worked well. http://www.voipsupply.com/product_info.php?products_id=321 Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1 or 2 POTS jacks. We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works well with asterisk that would be great Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006 -- 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC says VoIP Must Pay USF
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060621/telecoms_fcc_usf.html?.v=3 Internet phones must pay into subsidy fund, says FCC Wednesday June 21, 12:03 pm ET By Jeremy Pelofsky WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Consumers who use wireless or Internet-based telephones could see their bills rise, as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission approved on Wednesday a new plan for funding phone service subsidies. The FCC ordered Internet telephone services like Vonage Holdings Corp. (NYSE:VG - News) to contribute part of their revenue into the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone service to rural and low-income areas as well as communications services and Internet access for schools, hospitals and libraries. The agency also increased the amount wireless telephone providers would have to pay into the fund. The move may lead to higher bills for wireless and Internet telephone customers because the companies typically pass the fees on to customers. Companies offering long-distance and international telephone services as well as high-speed Internet service via digital subscriber lines (DSL) must currently contribute 10.9 percent of that revenue into the $7.3 billion fund. However, DSL providers will no longer have to contribute to the program after August, so the FCC had to act to avoid a potential shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars. Consumers' DSL bills could go down if the savings were passed through to them. Under the plan adopted by the FCC commissioners, providers of Internet telephone service, known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VOIP, would have to pay about 7 percent of their revenue into the fund under the current contribution factor. The contribution factor is usually adjusted each quarter, based on payments received from providers. Wireless carriers would have to increase their contribution to the fund by about 1 percentage point to 4 percent of their revenue under the new FCC plan. Agency officials said they expect the new levels to take effect in the fourth quarter. If the wireless or Internet telephone providers could prove that their long distance and international revenue were less, they would be allowed to use a smaller percentage as the basis for their contribution to the fund. The FCC has been weighing broader reform of Universal Service Fund contributions for some time, and Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has supported a charge based on telephone numbers. Thank you. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] TechDirt on Bruce Kushnick's book
Earlier this year, we wrote about http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml Bruce Kushnick's book, $200 Billion Broadband Scandal http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm , laying out all the details for how the telcos were granted all sorts of subsidies and benefits in exchange for promising to delivering high speed fiber to our homes -- something they've still never done. Kushnick has been talking about this travesty of a situation for many years, and the book lays it all out in tremendous detail. With so much debate going on concerning network neutrality, Kushnick let us know that he is now offering the entire book as a free download http://www.newnetworks.com/scandals.htm for this week only. There's a short summary http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm, if you were wondering what exactly the telcos promised to deliver, and what it's cost everyone for them not to actually deliver it. It's yet another reminder on why actually trusting the telcos on anything they say is a unlikely to do you any good. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060620/0130218.shtml -- 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] Is Municipal Wi-Fi A Right? If So, Who Pays?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060621/tc_zd/181552 para-phrased below The term digital divide is passé and politically incorrect in the context of municipal wireless access. According to industry experts at the MuniWireless Silicon Valley conference, the new nomenclature is digital inclusion. MuniWireless, a three-day conference in Santa Clara that began on Monday, was a gathering of venture capitalists, municipal authorities, nonprofit organizations, and software and hardware companies, all eager to bring city-wide wireless connections to the U.S. The conversation was not about whether municipal wireless will become a reality – it was about when, how, and, most importantly, how much. Chris Sacca, principal of new business development for Google, likened the conference to the Democratic National Convention. Whenever I talk to vendors in this space, I can't get a straight answer, Sacca said. I can't get anyone to talk about the true capabilities of their products. It reminds me of the Democratic convention: You've got a lot of good guys working for a good cause but they get so caught up in their own business that they lose elections. So I'm going to ask everyone to remember why we're building these networks in the first place. I think it's a noble aim and I think everyone is here because they actually do care about promoting access. We don't have to sell them the idea that the Internet is important for them. They know that. They realize it has to do with healthcare, jobs and community engagement. Those are the issues that people want solutions for. If there's no such thing as a free lunch, it is probably unreasonable to expect a free wireless connection. Somebody will have to pay for it -- and there was little agreement as to whom and how. Alec Ross, a panelist from One Economy, a broadband nonprofit organization, said that low-income people will spend up to $20 per month on broadband. Jonathan Baltuch, president of MRI, discussed the March 2006 launch of citywide wireless in St. Cloud, Florida, which he deemed a huge success. Over half of the households in St. Cloud are using the advertisement-supported network but still, this model has yet to be definitively proven, he said. Additionally, the big broadband providers such as ATT, often referred to at the conference as the incumbents, should not be expected to sit back and watch their market share leak away to free WiFi. -- 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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Actually, My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it off. Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality why do you do it? I'm a top poster. I hate having to essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible). I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to know"why", so ... peace Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible... Read on below. comments are prefaced with North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO WIRES!- - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. I don't see the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE! How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud? How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access to content. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. I seriously doubt that. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Earl Comstock stated it best at ISPCON last year: The reason we are in the mess we call telecom today is that 300 companies with an army of lawyers and lobbyists spent $100's of millions to tell Congress the FCC to regulate them and not us. Regulation generally does NOT work that way. You don't have the money, power or levergae to lobby to have WBB excluded from the regulation. If WBB gets excluded, so too does cellular and probably all of it, since the language of bills would never be able to differentiate correctly. I have spoken to too enough staffers, researchers, reporters and Congress Critters to know that they do NOT know what they are talking about here. (Watch the hearings... No clue. Sometimes even the witnesses make no sense). - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: While it may sound great to have a double standard law, it isn't realistic. I disagree for several reasons. Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT be a double standard between Cable and Telcos. The reason is that Telcos and Cable Companmies are BOTH similar types of companies as far as monoply status, franchise, and/or goliath dominant player status (in volume). Wireless Broadband is NOT the same type of industry. Wireless- limited on spectrum. Wireless- limited on capacity (not infinately replicateable) Wireless- predominantly serves underserved areas. Wireless- predominantly newly installed and unsubsidized (although MUNI could changed that) Wireless- Full of minority (record low size) small providers. Laws need to protect consumer interests, to pass. Consumers want wireless providers and benefit from them. They want policies that will allow wireless providers to grow and succeed. Its jsut an education problem to teach people the justification of why the double standard should exist. Second double standards exist ALL the time in politics. The goal is to get the bill past, and to negotiate will all the people that potentially may protest the bill to keep it from passing. Politics promises exceptions for special interests to buy their support for a bill that will help a larger common good if passed. Its just like plea bargining, giving a small time criminal amnisty if they tetsify against the larger more evil criminal. Or its like the new high power rules for smart antennas, which actually were put i place to accommodate 1 manufacturer that had a smart antenna technology to bring to market. Basically rewards a company that has some unique contribution. In this case it was a smart antenna to reduce interference to others. Wireless has a unique donation. The abilty to be able to cost effectively serve little holes of underserved areas. Putting regulation on small wireless providers could seriously hinder their abilty to offer services without risk, and reduce deployments. Exceptions can be made, if they are jsutified. Thats how a bill gets made, every aspect of the bill is negotiated to meet everyone's interests. What isn;t allowed is rule limiting or burdening specific companies. I'm not asking to target a specifc comapny or a pecific compant to be excempt. I am asking for a technology to be exempt, a technology that has different characteristics and can be used by any provider to offer services. So is it really a double standard? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Outlook
Change from HTML or Rich Text to just plain text. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Mac Thanks! Exactly what I needed! How is it going down there? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:47 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Dan, We have bought a lot of stuff from these folks and these adapters are really highly recommended and have worked well. http://www.voipsupply.com/product_info.php?products_id=321 Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1 or 2 POTS jacks. We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works well with asterisk that would be great Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006 -- 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- 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] ATA - SIP Adapters
I have about 100 subs using my free voip service as a beta project. I realized early on that there was lots to do to bring my system up to snuf to be able to offer a decent voip product. George Tom DeReggi wrote: I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Mac Thanks! Exactly what I needed! How is it going down there? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:47 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Dan, We have bought a lot of stuff from these folks and these adapters are really highly recommended and have worked well. http://www.voipsupply.com/product_info.php?products_id=321 Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1 or 2 POTS jacks. We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works well with asterisk that would be great Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006 -- 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- 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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
I am and always have been a StarOS fan. They came out on top when we where initially tested various products 2 years ago and have been great since however we had to revisited RouterOS recently when we noticed that the majority of our traffic was 100 - 200 byte packets which was killing our WAR based backhaul links. We tested a pair of WAR board running the latest V3 next to a pair of WRAP's (yes WRAP's) running RouterOS and found that with small packets the WRAP's running RouterOS and N-Streme actually outperformed the WAR's. The conclusion is that if you're looking for a solution that can push a high amount of large packets the WAR platform from Valemount is great but if you are looking to load your network with real internet traffic and VoIP then RouterOS has the edge (at the moment ;). I am really interested to see the V4 Alvarion product tested side by side a high spec RouterOS based product like the ones Stephen Patrick's company produces. I'd also be interested to hear from Alvarion what is better about their platform than a well built Mikrotik unit. P www.skyline-networks.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 20/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Turn off the option to compose E-mail in HTML. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Actually, My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it off. Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality why do you do it? I'm a top poster. I hate having to essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible). I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to know"why", so ... peace Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible... Read on below. comments are prefaced with North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO WIRES!- - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. I don't see the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE! How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud? How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access to content. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. I seriously doubt that. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Mac Thanks! Exactly what I needed! How is it going down there? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:47 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Dan, We have bought a lot of stuff from these folks and these adapters are really highly recommended and have worked well. http://www.voipsupply.com/product_info.php?products_id=321 Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1 or 2 POTS jacks. We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works well with asterisk that would be great Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006 -- 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006 -- 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
It would be far cheaper to send them a SET-UP CD that includes copies of AVS anti-virus, Ad-aware, and other security software. And has a softphone client on the CD. Soft Phone can be pre-set. CD would have to be autoplay with a GUI. Tom DeReggi wrote: I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
In my experience ATA adapters have always given better quality voice than a software solution. P. www.skyline-networks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: 21 June 2006 21:28 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters It would be far cheaper to send them a SET-UP CD that includes copies of AVS anti-virus, Ad-aware, and other security software. And has a softphone client on the CD. Soft Phone can be pre-set. CD would have to be autoplay with a GUI. Tom DeReggi wrote: I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 20/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 20/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot
Anyone have a good guide on setting up Mikrotik for a hotspot? I seem to have everything working except for Universal Client. Can someone gives some pointers on getting this going. In versions previous to 2.9 there seemed to be an easy setting, but I can't find anything in 2.9 that matches the guides that I've found. I'm sure I'm overlooking something so I'm hoping someone can give me a clue here. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotikpoint-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trangoand Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen PatrickSent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently "performance better than Brand X" even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from "vendor products" I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul,
Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces
Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators. Scriv Hi John and Marlon, We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment. So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to: a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006' and b) oppose the DeMint Auction The White Spaces Amendment Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below. I would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help! Thank you, Frannie Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004 John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644 Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253 Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922 Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753 John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244 George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024 John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841 Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121 David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623 Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934 John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472 John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551 Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553 Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441 Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353 begin:vcard fn:John Scrivner n:Scrivner;John org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc. adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:President tel;work:618-244-6868 url:http://www.mvn.net/ version:2.1 end:vcard -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS
Yes they are, you have to ask for them but ATT offers these services to business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS Businesses with multiple lines and many employees are not able to buy unmetered service. -Matt On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rich Comroe wrote: It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local US long distance available for $60 ... something / month. I do. To save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't. Level that (which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly. I'm not seeing the savings. In what region of the US are ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US). Is $60/mo unmetered local long distance not available? Rich - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to voip. They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month on long distance with our VoIP service. -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] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book
Check this out. We net'd an increase in dialup over the last week of plus 2 dialup customers. That's right folks. In this day and age in the summer time no less. We added more dialup than we turned off. I can't believe it but I am not going to turn them away for sure. Dialup still pays a bunch of the bills and it is easy. Go figure. scriv scratches head and pops a cold Bud :-) Scriv There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - geography, people are happy with dial-up, - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book
If you work with your Muni (many of us do) then it can be your life blood in some cases. We do not use local tax dollars but we do use water towers, we connect the police departments to cop cars and fire departments to each other. Stuff like this IS the promise of Muni BB and it is a great way to develop your business into a crucial and valuable part of your business and community. Why let others define Muni BB or slam it when many of us invented it? In Mt. Vernon, Illinois everyone knows me as the guy who brought Muni BB to life. We call it Mt. Vernon. Net here and the 1300 people who use our wireless network every day to connect to the Internet and each other love it. Scriv Mark said: Muni BB is just a false promise and it's going to hurt us all. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Good idea. Definately would be cheaper, if considering the advertising budget. However, not sure it would be cheaper from support perspective. everyone knows how to plug in a phone, and enter their credit card info on a web form But do something complicated :-), like plug in a microphone/headset, click setup on a CD, or find the options tab to correct sound card problems, that becomes expensive over the phone for support. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters It would be far cheaper to send them a SET-UP CD that includes copies of AVS anti-virus, Ad-aware, and other security software. And has a softphone client on the CD. Soft Phone can be pre-set. CD would have to be autoplay with a GUI. Tom DeReggi wrote: I think this would be a great sales pitch. Currently send a Linksys ($60) out with every new broadband subscriber at install. Why not spend the $18 more and make it a VOIP linksys router with a sticker on the top, plug in phone, goto www.get and instantly activate voice service. It could be cheaper to always have the VOIP option sitting there and ready than to market it later? (VOIP ATA/Router down to $78, this is super value hard to argue with) The only exception might be, I may not want to promote VOIP to all customers, such as with low link quality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- 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] ATA - SIP Adapters
On 6/21/06, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be far cheaper to send them a SET-UP CD that includes copiesof AVS anti-virus, Ad-aware, and other security software. And has asoftphone client on the CD. Soft Phone can be pre-set.CD would have to be autoplay with a GUI. Forget CDs and load all the software (don't forget Firefox, CCleaner, etc) on a branded USB thumbdrive. -- 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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Charles, Excellent points. However to expand on that. Mikrotik added software feature is looked at as added value but in some cases looked at as a negative feature. For example, sometimes all I want is an easy to install bridge. I take a Trango out of the box, and bam its working, and I can't screw it up. Mikrotik on the other hand, I get confused jsut looking at it, because all the options I have to configure and screw things up :-) For example, Trango does normalfull bridging by default, Mikrotik you got to customizeWDS in a specific way to get it right. I'd argue that Mikrotik's largest value is not software, but hardware flexibilty. A board all preloaded and ready to go with the software preloaded, with flexible Wireless card add-ons. Its valuable to say for an extra $50 I can add a repeater radio, or extra $100 I can add a 900Mhz repeater to the existing radio, or for $50 I can add a HotSpot Radio with a second Omni. The cost to expand Mikrotik is pennies compared to any other solution on the market. But to reap the benefits of low cost expansion the backhaul link from the initial CPE radio has to also be Mikrotik. So in a sense its accepting a small trade offfor thefirst layer (CPEs) from cell site,to gain low cost easy expansion. Quite honestly, today is probably the first day I tried to use a Mikrotik feature otehr than how to bridge and pass large packets. My Linksys does everythign else I need for $50. Sure Mikrotik's software is very feature rich, and probably the best value on the market, but the true value is flexibilty to have multi-port radios expandable as needed. Based on that arguement, Mikrotik is bundled in with StarOS. Alvarion's strength on the other hand, is top notch support. Its not uncommon for Alvarion to send an engineer onsite to help (FOR FREE!!!). And a product out of teh box ALL INTACT. Not connections (MiniPCI/Pigtail) to fail. And best of class RF firmware. (Class being defined as Atheros based 802.11a). Its funny, I am actually about 50/50 on wether I use StarOS or Mikrotik for appropriate projects.STAROS is easier to configure and teach how to configure,so I like to use it. Mikrotik, addstechnical features needed such as VirtualAP, WDS bridging w/ VLAN, etc.There are some jobs, that only Mikrotik could deliver the solution. Because oif that if I had to pick one over the other I'd ahve to select Mikrotik. But I'm not forced to make that choice, I can use both. An example where I use StarOS is serving three or four homes on a culdasack from one common backhaul antenna.Put an residential end user in front of a Mikrotik Enterface, and they are super lost. Its powerful but not easy. Learning is involved. But in StarOS, because its text, in a pull down menu format, its much easier to walk end users over the phone how to use it and check stuff. Not that end users usually need to. But its the little things like how to tell if associated and the received signal strength. Its the first thing the end user sees when they ssh in. With Alvarion, none ofthese things are relevant. The fact that a Alvarion radio is inline, is hidden to the consumer. Only the service provider interacts with it. Instead its purpose is to add the most reliable product for delivering the RF solution. All three products have their value, jsut the value proposition is different. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotikpoint-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trangoand Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into
RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
George, Check out the link Mac sent. It had the handytone for about $58. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. 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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
That's not quite it. I have never had my OE set to compose html... There's one more setting. From the main screen it is Tools - Options - Send (tab) Uncheck 'reply to messages in the format they were sent or something close to that. 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: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Turn off the option to compose E-mail in HTML. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality Actually, My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it off. Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality why do you do it? I'm a top poster. I hate having to essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added yeah me too way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the c hain of replies too (when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible). I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or wrong, only a preference ... but you wanted to know why, so ... peace Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible... Read on below. comments are prefaced with 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: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. I don't see the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE! How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud? How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access to content. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. I seriously doubt that. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151 989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mercury.net
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
{oops...responded to the wrong message...MODERATOR! MODERATOR!!!}
Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
- Original Message -
From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
you could put a hot tub in there, too...
Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
- Original Message -
From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
That's not quite it. I have never had my OE set to compose html...
There's one more setting.
From the main screen it is Tools - Options - Send (tab)
Uncheck 'reply to messages in the format they were sent or something
close
to that.
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: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Turn off the option to compose E-mail in HTML.
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Actually,
My Outlook Express does the same thing when I reply. I hate it. But I
do
not know how to turn it off.
Does any one know how to turn off the feature that includes the bar on
the
left, when I reply myself?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Rich Comroe
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
why do you do it?
I'm a top poster. I hate having to essentially re-read the previous
email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email
and you ultimately just find an added yeah me too way down at the
bottom).
I find that incredibly annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out
what
you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply.
Concise.
The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you
don't have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see
the c
hain of replies too (when each reply edits the same body, it quickly
becomes
impossible).
I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or
wrong, only a preference ... but you wanted to know why, so ...
peace
Rich
- Original Message -
From: Mark Koskenmaki
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left...
why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible...
Read on below. comments are prefaced with
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: David Sovereen
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they
want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door
for
content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to
all
content on the Internet.
I don't see the problem with content companies and
subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS
WHAT
I PROVIDE!
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't
generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since
long
before Napster was someone's dream.
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic
to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or
anyone
else.
I will eventually, and I
