RE: [WISPA] WISP Job Openings
Lol.. Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.2kwireless.com 2K Wireless provides high-speed internet access, along with network consulting for WISPs, and business's with a focus on TCP/IP networking, security, and Mikrotik routers. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Job Openings Scottsbluff Nebraska isn't remote enough for you?! :) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: Anyone needing a remote engineer? Part-Time/Full Time, or Monthly allotment? Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.2kwireless.com 2K Wireless provides high-speed internet access, along with network consulting for WISPs, and business's with a focus on TCP/IP networking, security, and Mikrotik routers. -- 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] WISP Job Openings
Hutton/EC just told me that my position is being closed as of Dec. 31. Maybe I should move? grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:10 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] WISP Job Openings Lol.. Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.2kwireless.com 2K Wireless provides high-speed internet access, along with network consulting for WISPs, and business's with a focus on TCP/IP networking, security, and Mikrotik routers. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Job Openings Scottsbluff Nebraska isn't remote enough for you?! :) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: Anyone needing a remote engineer? Part-Time/Full Time, or Monthly allotment? Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.2kwireless.com 2K Wireless provides high-speed internet access, along with network consulting for WISPs, and business's with a focus on TCP/IP networking, security, and Mikrotik routers. -- 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] OTARD
It was. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Bledsoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:01 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OTARD Fascinating. I had always read OTARD to only cover client devices and not base station devices. -Hal __ Harold Bledsoe Deliberant LLC 800.742.9865 x205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.deliberant.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OTARD CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. Found that Massport's restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna are pre-empted by the OTARD rules and therefore granted Continental's petition. (Dkt No. 05-247). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 10/17/2006 by MOO. (FCC No. 06-157). OET http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.txt -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OTARD
In this particular situation the client (tenant) was owner of both ends (base station and CPE) I think. Correct me if I am wrong. I seem to remember reading that the airline wanted a private WiFi network for themselves. The airport (landlord) was trying to prevent this. In this type of a situation I think OTARD would apply regardless of the type of equipment used. In the event of a base station where a third party ISP is the beneficiary of use of a base station OTARD right of access would still not apply. I welcome feedback, corrections, rebuttals here. Truth is I know little about this but think I would like to know more. If anyone else has knowledge of this particular case and can add more enlightenment it is much appreciated. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: It was. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Bledsoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:01 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OTARD Fascinating. I had always read OTARD to only cover client devices and not base station devices. -Hal __ Harold Bledsoe Deliberant LLC 800.742.9865 x205 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.deliberant.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OTARD CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. Found that Massport's restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna are pre-empted by the OTARD rules and therefore granted Continental's petition. (Dkt No. 05-247). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 10/17/2006 by MOO. (FCC No. 06-157). OET http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.txt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider when adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems being proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to say I am all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. The proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be allowed to use this space for low power vehicle communications. Our attorney, Kris Twomey, told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I could not find anything regarding this that was terribly important to WISPs. If I am wrong then please tell me how I am wrong and why it is important for WISPs to take a stand of any kind in this proceeding and then we will consider it. I promise I have not made my mind up yet on this and I would be glad to take a stand if one is needed. I welcome others feedback. Thanks, Scriv Rick Smith wrote: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order. Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? Yeah, that is a valid concern. They're contemplating a lot of outdoor units (like one in every American car). FYI, when I left the activity ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited power, and road-side units of limited height. They're not trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into short-medium--long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short, like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency traffic light control). So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels. However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
John wrote: In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. Got that right (that it's not an option currently). DSRC may be using a wifi variant (narrowed 802.11a), but the DSRC usage is not intended to be the same traffic as consumer wireless internet that wifi typically carries. DSRC has a variety of functions, mostly related to highway traffic for the safety of the public. As such, DSRC traffic requires various priorities, the most stringent demanding lower latency than could be achievable unless the channels are dedicated to DSRC functionality. Unlicensed functions for any purpose are contemplated to take place on UNII channels as they are designated for today, and the DSRC channel access layer for safety functions may be totally different than 802.11 MAC. We were headed that way when I left that committee's work (it was one of the few things that I'd contributed to their effort that stuck) and from my reading of the FCC order, I think it's still that way (discussion of control channels). As such there's a sensitivity of DSRC members that dual-band units not be able to operate using standard 802.11 MAC on the DSRC channels which could put the dedicated DSRC safety functions at risk. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider when adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems being proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to say I am all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. The proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be allowed to use this space for low power vehicle communications. Our attorney, Kris Twomey, told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I could not find anything regarding this that was terribly important to WISPs. If I am wrong then please tell me how I am wrong and why it is important for WISPs to take a stand of any kind in this proceeding and then we will consider it. I promise I have not made my mind up yet on this and I would be glad to take a stand if one is needed. I welcome others feedback. Thanks, Scriv Rick Smith wrote: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here? What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about commenting to the FCC. Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this was outside our existing bands and you never replied. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order. Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? Yeah, that is a valid concern. They're contemplating a lot of outdoor units (like one in every American car). FYI, when I left the activity ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited power, and road-side units of limited height. They're not trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into short-medium--long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short, like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency traffic light control). So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels. However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
Brian, How is billing done when most high ARPU business's demand paper billing? This is something I don't get. What is the difference between me generating the bill, emailing it out, and them printing it.vsme generating the bill...me printing it outletting snail mail pick it up. It's the same. Both times it is generated, printed, and mailed. I don't paper bill. I just tell them to push print. Thats the difference between a full service company and a commodity service provider, the full service provider understands why the customer should not have to click print. There is more to it though. Large business accounting practices is for all Snail mail to be sent to the accounting department for processing. The common bin that all accounting personel look to to enter new bills into their accounting system for net terms payment. Email accounts generally tend to be individual specific apposed to group specific. They are trained to open envelopes, because 99% of their bills come that way. Its about proceedure. People forget about things that go against proceedure. OFten Email invoices nevewr get to the authoritary person, never get entered, and then never get paid. Business do not want special circumstnace proceedures that have to be remembered. Businesses don;t want providers that take money out of their accounts without guaranteed paper trails, or without guarantee or confirmation that services were first provided. They don;t want to be responsible for billing errors automatically withdrawn, they want to maintain control. What do you do when cash flow does not allow payment? Are you going to disconnect a high ARPU business? Do you want to get the excuses, I didn't get the bill so it didn't get entered for payment? Its our responsibility to get it to them. Email addresses change, street addresses rarely do. Leigitimate Email often gets blocked as spam, snail mail always goes through. How is bandwdith management done when just limiting a single backhaul connection is no longer the requirement, and smarter things are needed like roaming policies, QOS, Labeling, Latency guarantees, nested/layered cell sites, MPLS type stuff, tracking dissimilar network equipmentthat gets deployed differently, etc.. I think this system will do exactly what it represents, help a WISP get started, so they can concentrate on selling, operate more efficiently, and track their progress for better obtaining funding, during the early years. But as soon as someone starts to scale, If a WISP were mostly residential, what is a guesstimate of the number of subs one would have at the starts to scale time? Hard to say. But with residential, its more important to have efficient system for managing the customers, to make low revenue business feasible, and its less important to have all the extra fancy custom QOS and tracking features. Partnership tracking, revenue share tracking, QOS, Latency guarantees, etc, are all Business High ARPU needs. The flip side is that for residential, not having the systems may prevent being able to scale. Its the high ARPU business models that cost justify self made custom applications, apposed to using whats available. they are going to realize how they need to make their own custom solution because whats available isn't going to cut it, and its going to be cost jsutified to put complete solutions in place. I guess my point is, even the best solutions are not good enough. It is hard to believe we are all so different in our operations. Is there not something available somewhere out there that would work for most? How can we get anything done as an industry in we all have to invent our own wheel from scratch. Well, I hope it is obvious that I need a WISP services service, because I do. I agree. Its not our businesses that are so different. But unfortunately the software developers haven't quite gotten it yet. (our business) They come close, but close is not good enough. Everyone wants to leverage what they already have an adapt it. BUt that doesn't work, the application needs to be done from the ground up, as the WISP business is much different than other tech businesses, and other wired ISP businesses. The flow of a WISP's opperations are completely different. I'm building my own app only because I waiting 5 years for someone else to do it and it never came. Sure there are things like OptiGold, Logisense, and Platipus that came close. But that only gets you half way there. Sure WISPs no what they need, but they tend to do hte absolute minimum needed for their need, as they are in the WISP business not the applications sales business. It also becomes a conflic of interest for them to sell their solutions that give them thier competitive advantage. The things that scares me about dboss services is it's not mine. It'd be nice to be able to have some program that does all the WISP services but is
Re: [WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
In Dboss's case, they found a model where it was more profitable to give away software to make sure they would get paid for more profitable tackon services, than to bill for the software itself. And when they give it away, people like me still critisize its validity for use. Its a tought business. But if someone made the right product it would sell, and it would be profitable. It just costs most software developers to much to build it because they do not fully understand the business, and its learning the business that is expensive for the developer, in my opionion. (re-write after re-write after re-write.) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS Matt Liotta wrote: Brian Rohrbacher wrote: This is something I don't get. What is the difference between me generating the bill, emailing it out, and them printing it.vsme generating the bill...me printing it outletting snail mail pick it up. It's the same. Both times it is generated, printed, and mailed. I don't paper bill. I just tell them to push print. There are whole business processes with checks and balances surrounding paper bills. There are no such processes for electronic bills in most firms. If the revenue is worth your while you will send a paper bill. I guess I'm just lucky enough to find someone in the billing department who will print it. It is hard to believe we are all so different in our operations. Is there not something available somewhere out there that would work for most? How can we get anything done as an industry in we all have to invent our own wheel from scratch. Well, I hope it is obvious that I need a WISP services service, because I do. The things that scares me about dboss services is it's not mine. It'd be nice to be able to have some program that does all the WISP services but is installed on my server in my data center and only I have access. That way no one can mess it up for me and no one can keep me out. Actually, most WISPs are quite different from one another since most have never scaled to the point where they have documented, standardized, repeatable processes. Most have one or more experts that keep the whole thing together. The few operators who have scaled (we haven't) probably already have most of the systems in place they need (we do). Therefore, the market is small WISPs who don't have much money in the first place and tend to have NIH syndrome. As a former software guy I can tell you that such a market isn't very attractive. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OTARD
There is more to this in that no one but the FCC is allowed to restrict the airwaves use. Anyone can license the use of a physical space, controled by them for a specific purpose. However, As long as a radio is in ones own controlled space, I'm not sure it matters wether its an AP or an SU. Its not about being a radio, its about not being able to tell someone what to do in their own space. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OTARD In this particular situation the client (tenant) was owner of both ends (base station and CPE) I think. Correct me if I am wrong. I seem to remember reading that the airline wanted a private WiFi network for themselves. The airport (landlord) was trying to prevent this. In this type of a situation I think OTARD would apply regardless of the type of equipment used. In the event of a base station where a third party ISP is the beneficiary of use of a base station OTARD right of access would still not apply. I welcome feedback, corrections, rebuttals here. Truth is I know little about this but think I would like to know more. If anyone else has knowledge of this particular case and can add more enlightenment it is much appreciated. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: It was. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Bledsoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:01 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OTARD Fascinating. I had always read OTARD to only cover client devices and not base station devices. -Hal __ Harold Bledsoe Deliberant LLC 800.742.9865 x205 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.deliberant.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OTARD CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. Found that Massport's restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna are pre-empted by the OTARD rules and therefore granted Continental's petition. (Dkt No. 05-247). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 10/17/2006 by MOO. (FCC No. 06-157). OET http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.txt -- 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] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that this was desirable to keep usage separate. What can I say? I worked for Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy! I left the activity when the committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC products to that standard. I actually had initial success selling the Moto concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned for Canopy. 802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the common technology to promote lower cost through volume. They were obviously trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours. Many users, however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a bridge. This needs further explaining. For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side units. But it's a chicken and egg situation. If transmitters are there every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC trasceivers for their cars. Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers, one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway transceivers. What comes first? Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered attractive. To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band. Mobile based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated. They contemplate every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 UNII band. But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ... the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels above the UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard. DSRC functions are public safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed. It wouldn't make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels. But it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public will want on their own is much preferred). Hope that makes sense. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here? What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about commenting to the FCC. Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this was outside our existing bands and you never replied. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order. Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative post. It sounds like you have a rich background in this particular proceeding!:-) Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that this was desirable to keep usage separate. What can I say? I worked for Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy! I left the activity when the committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC products to that standard. I actually had initial success selling the Moto concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned for Canopy. 802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the common technology to promote lower cost through volume. They were obviously trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours. Many users, however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a bridge. This needs further explaining. For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side units. But it's a chicken and egg situation. If transmitters are there every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC trasceivers for their cars. Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers, one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway transceivers. What comes first? Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered attractive. To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band. Mobile based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated. They contemplate every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 UNII band. But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ... the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels above the UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard. DSRC functions are public safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed. It wouldn't make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels. But it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public will want on their own is much preferred). Hope that makes sense. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here? What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about commenting to the FCC. Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this was outside our existing bands and you never replied. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this
[WISPA] Low power Ethernet Switch
Looking for a VERY low wattage 12 or 24 volt switch. Does anyone have any recommendations? I need it for a remote tower running 12 and 24 volt solar. thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Low power Ethernet Switch
D. Ryan Spott wrote: Looking for a VERY low wattage 12 or 24 volt switch. Does anyone have any recommendations? I need it for a remote tower running 12 and 24 volt solar. No, but I'll see your question and raise you another question. Anyone have any recommendations on (if this even exists) small managed or semi-managed switches? Basically, I just want to be able to graph traffic by port, and mybe shut off a given port, but you usually only find that in physically large (i.e. rackmount) switches. I want something like that, but with only five or maybe eight ports, small enough to stick in an outdoor enclosure. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
