Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon. Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network... And at the end of a day with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes, I acct ually own 2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle someone. To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on someone's roof. I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due to a lightning strike - just about 6 months. My gateway and backhaul often goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio crash required a reboot. Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put together myself and you got something...really got something. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Butch Evans wrote: It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router at the CPE is necessary. BINGO. Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do... As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than our cpes, to the customer. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Well I wish some Qwest customers would be as angry as you are and call me.. Ah, maybe not, I don't want angry customers! :) Mark Koskenmaki wrote: That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon. Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network... And at the end of a day with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes, I acct ually own 2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle someone. To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on someone's roof. I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due to a lightning strike - just about 6 months. My gateway and backhaul often goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio crash required a reboot. Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put together myself and you got something...really got something. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Butch Evans wrote: It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router at the CPE is necessary. BINGO. Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do... As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than our cpes, to the customer. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
- Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Right guys, I accept all that may be true but even in the DSL world, customers provide their own routers and that is certainly true of commercial customers. What planet do you live on? Every DSL service I have seen in a LONG time provides the dsl modem and router together as one device. In any event, VL does many of things for which you think make a router so critical. Even better, it does a lot of them at the RF level which makes the link and total network more efficient. Frankly though, I need one of my engineers in this type conversation; I'm just not technically competent enough on the networking side (and barely so in the nitty gritty of the RF side). You can't do routing, dhcp, firewalling, etc, at the RF level. At the same token, many here that are truly skilled remain under exposed on the RF side since most have not used truly sophisticated gear that allows for depths of tweaking beyond that which you have experienced. What I use may not be sophisticated by your standards. But if we look at the overall picture, attaching that high priced RF equipment to a linksys router is like transplanting a pinto engine and gas tank into a humvee... Frankly, I can't find that elusive somewhere between linksys and belkin and the other end where imagestream and cisco live - well, except for what I use... Which costs less and is dead reliable and excellent performing. I have never encountered an old hand who, once thoroughly exposed to our firmware in a scaled system, did not say something along the lines of, Wow, I did not know that sort of thing could be even be done! or You mean that's all we have to do to do that? That always took me hours before! Basically, I think many of you have trained and become good street racers, but you've not yet become real race car drivers because you are still driving souped up street cars not realizing a real race car actually IS different. Certainly most of us who deal with wifi-based gear are very much aware of the limitations of the rf side of this setup. It's no mystery, Patrick and I think you grossly underestimate what we understand in that regard. Perhaps alvarion c ould get into the business of providing a REAL mini-pci radio, certified with various antennas, and then we'd have the better of both worlds... Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Butch Evans wrote: It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router at the CPE is necessary. BINGO. Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do... As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than our cpes, to the customer. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- 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] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Patrick, Pardon my ignorance...I'm not an RF guy...but what do you mean by the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands. I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over 50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?) Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon. But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than sensitivity. At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the 20mbps Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances. OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly higher C/Is). OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can operate with less signal than 20mbps Canopy. And as you already expressed, with 17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster. But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can tolerate partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold. Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of time framed systems. I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong. I'm a great fan of time framed systems myself. It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system would have performed? I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge those definitions. However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to my comments. I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the reader would apply their knowledge of the definitions, to infer the relevance of comments made. To be more clear OFDM is plagued by a larger SNR to operate adequately, compared to DSSS. DSSS has been able to operate with minimum SNRs anywhere from 3db (canopy) to 8db (trango). Actually that comment is not exactly true, Canopy's C/I is 3db (not minimum SNR required). OFDM gear typically wants to see a minimum of 17db SNR, and performs optimally with 25db SNR. I'm not aware that Wifi gear has worse C/I specs than non-Wifi gear, based on it being Wifi (csma/ca). Wifi or TDD has nothing to do with Noise, Wifi TDD has to do with timing of transmissions. My point was that if you can't get over the noise, when using modulations less able to get over the noise, you can help solve the problem by transmitting when the noise is not occuring. Contant time based transmission has little benefit, if it occurs during a noisy time where that noise will kill the signal and results in packet loss. I'd rather have increased latency, and try again, to prevent packet loss. I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS to be able to survive the noise, with better SNRs Meant... DSSS gets over noise
Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?
lets look at the VHF system, which radio would you buy?? Or is it which proprietary system would you deploy? Or is it where can I lease/rent/buy crystals to put in my radio? Black and white, I am the customer beholden unto to my supplier, long may they live. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Tom DeReggi wrote: Carl, You bring up a point that I do not disagree, other than it is jsut the reality of our industry. There is no adequate standard today. Basic WiFi on its own just has to many flaws in design to be adequate High ARPU Business class scale. What you talk about is the Promise of WiMax. I don't fight that dream, it just doesn't exist yet in the US. I'd rather pick a proprietary manufacturer, than not have a solution at all, or one that doesn't work adequately. The winners in this business are who guesses best at which proprietary vendor will continue to be the best choice. Its hard to predict, everyday what was right could change. I know what you want, and ultimately its wha tI want, but its a dream, not reality. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Carl A jeptha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS? So am I correct in assuming that being held ransom by a manufacturer is the right business model. Or If I buy Alvarion now and they go belly-up, I can just switch to Trango and when they go Belly-up I can go to Motorola and so on and so on. Or am I missing the POINT TOTALLY. I should not use an internationally recognized standard, I should use Proprietary equipment. RANT I spent two years of my life with WAVERIDER, where the [EMAIL PROTECTED]^ing he!! are they now I spent two years of my life with CIRRONET, where are they now /RANT Tell me again it is a sound business model to be held Hostage by one manufacturer If the international standard is wrong, why can't we get the manufacturers to come up with a common standard??? Or is it that when held hostage they don't have to supply proper customer service Or is it their business plan to capture the market and after gaining the monopoly, then what? ALL I WANT IS TO BE ABLE TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. IF I HAVE TWENTY DIFFERENT RADIOS ON MY NETWORK AND THEY ALL TALK TOGETHER, TIME WILL TELL ME WHICH ONE IS THE BETTER ONE. It does not take an engineer to figure out that one, and once I have been bitten by a bad product it will me a long time to go back to it. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Tom DeReggi wrote: Marty, And I probably should be selling, not debating :-( But, I can't agree more with your post. Except When was the last time a Trango EMPLOYEE asked for your feedback? Trango is one of the best manufacturers out there, from the perspective of asking their customers, what they want and need, and responding with change. They've even reimbursed WISPs for travel expenses to come offer their advice on how they can improve their product. Trango shines in that area, and their success at keeping in touch with their buyers, is a large part of their success to date, and I have nothing but respect for Trango's efforts in that area. Credit should be given where credit is due. Trango's current limitation, is they don't have a greater than 10mbps PtMP product. But it wasn't really ever needed until recently, nor ever really asked for, because it wasn't needed. Alvarion was the one that took 5 years to reduce their price, something we ALL always asked for from day one. Don't get me wrong, I wish Trango would replace the dish with a good solid panel, I haven't won that battle yet. Today, for me, Alvarion has the upper hand. They have the right product, at the right price, at the right time, which was a very bold and smart move strategically to make. Mutually for the WISP's benefit and Alvarions. Gain the market share, while they have the unique product to accomplish it. But, its not clear that Alvarion will have that same advantage 6 months from now, when Trango launches their next generation product, which I can tell you is an exciting product. And Trango is listening, as that product will have high quality Dual Polarity Panel antennas. This is a leap frog industry. Trango's bigger mistake is that Trango gave up backwards compatibility, in their vision for new products. That means they can't leverage their customer's existing huge investment in Trango installed base to their advantage, to encourage WISPs to wait for their new products from Trango. So Trango will have to compete head to head on feature set alone, like a start
Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?
When we made those decisions in 1999 we did not find Alvarion or Motorola. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully Carl and while I generally agree on use of standards (in a mature market), when the market is developing and one still wants in, then it is up to the operator to pick a horse that is stable. The stability of your initial choice was there for any to see and study as a public company. On your second choice, you decided to go with a new entrant to the market whose primary business was something else. So you made your own risk calculations. Had you opted for more stability (such as a Motorola or Alvarion), you'd not have been confronted with that problem. I agree that this is an important consideration and I would assert that too few WISPs place any value on that. I can tell you that the health and/or the commitment of a supplier is a TOP consideration of large operators. ...Not going that route would be unthinkable. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl A jeptha Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS? So am I correct in assuming that being held ransom by a manufacturer is the right business model. Or If I buy Alvarion now and they go belly-up, I can just switch to Trango and when they go Belly-up I can go to Motorola and so on and so on. Or am I missing the POINT TOTALLY. I should not use an internationally recognized standard, I should use Proprietary equipment. RANT I spent two years of my life with WAVERIDER, where the [EMAIL PROTECTED]^ing he!! are they now I spent two years of my life with CIRRONET, where are they now /RANT Tell me again it is a sound business model to be held Hostage by one manufacturer If the international standard is wrong, why can't we get the manufacturers to come up with a common standard??? Or is it that when held hostage they don't have to supply proper customer service Or is it their business plan to capture the market and after gaining the monopoly, then what? ALL I WANT IS TO BE ABLE TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. IF I HAVE TWENTY DIFFERENT RADIOS ON MY NETWORK AND THEY ALL TALK TOGETHER, TIME WILL TELL ME WHICH ONE IS THE BETTER ONE. It does not take an engineer to figure out that one, and once I have been bitten by a bad product it will me a long time to go back to it. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Tom DeReggi wrote: Marty, And I probably should be selling, not debating :-( But, I can't agree more with your post. Except When was the last time a Trango EMPLOYEE asked for your feedback? Trango is one of the best manufacturers out there, from the perspective of asking their customers, what they want and need, and responding with change. They've even reimbursed WISPs for travel expenses to come offer their advice on how they can improve their product. Trango shines in that area, and their success at keeping in touch with their buyers, is a large part of their success to date, and I have nothing but respect for Trango's efforts in that area. Credit should be given where credit is due. Trango's current limitation, is they don't have a greater than 10mbps PtMP product. But it wasn't really ever needed until recently, nor ever really asked for, because it wasn't needed. Alvarion was the one that took 5 years to reduce their price, something we ALL always asked for from day one. Don't get me wrong, I wish Trango would replace the dish with a good solid panel, I haven't won that battle yet. Today, for me, Alvarion has the upper hand. They have the right product, at the right price, at the right time, which was a very bold and smart move strategically to make. Mutually for the WISP's benefit and Alvarions. Gain the market share, while they have the unique product to accomplish it. But, its not clear that Alvarion will have that same advantage 6 months from now, when Trango launches their next generation product, which I can tell you is an exciting product. And Trango is listening, as that product will have high quality Dual Polarity Panel antennas. This is a leap frog industry. Trango's bigger mistake is that Trango gave up backwards compatibility, in their vision for new products. That means they can't leverage their customer's existing huge investment in Trango installed base to their advantage, to encourage WISPs to wait for their new products from Trango. So Trango will have to compete head to head on
[WISPA] latest ATT filing
http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Ryan, YES YES! I personally run about 30 MikroTik APs (Proxim, Trango and a few Tranzeo's) and have been using Tranzeo CPE's exclusively for the last few years. It works great. I also know that Matt Larsen uses Tranzeo CPE exclusively (for years) and he is a 100% dyed in the wool StarOS man with StarOS AP's and Tranzeo CPE in at least 3 different States out west. Pick your flavor and deploy with confidence!! :-) Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief) www.mac-tel.us (VoIP sales) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4182 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Can anyone just answer the questions I had without fighting amongst yourselves? (I thought Xmas with the inlaws was bad!) Lonnie... If I were to buy a StarOS type product, would it be compatable with the CPQ series radios from Tranzeo? What sort of client load should I be able to support on a Star-OS based AP? ryan On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ * *** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). * *** * *** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). * *** * *** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. * *** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Patrick, what exactly is this illegal hardware you're referring to ? Can't be tranzeo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Lonnie, Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware suppliers? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses.
RE: [WISPA] STar-OS and 900 mhz
Interesting thing is Mikrotik is seeing the same problem on 3.0beta4. They say it'll be corrected when beta 5 is released. No date on t that yet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] STar-OS and 900 mhz Tom, I haven't got time at the moment, but I have some experience with this combination... I'll write more later... but I believe there's a driver or radio problem that causes this. Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] PAcket loss with CSMA/CA I just installed a PTP 900Mhz Atheros SR9 StarOSV3 link that had 5% packet loss that I could not get rid of. (Set 12mbps modulation, and averaged greater than 20db SNR.) In theory, CSMA/CA should not get PAcket loss, like a TDD system might, as the CSMA waits for acknowledment and re-transmits if it does not get it, Wifi's built-in native ARQ. I was not surprices to see Latency skyrocket, or retransmisson to sky rocket, but I was surprised to see uncorrectable 5% packetloss. Any ideas on why it occured. Meaning why 802.11 MAC didn't self correct the packet loss with its native re-transmission? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - regardinginterference - Part 1 I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has gone...wow So, my 2 cents... One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of a system's interference robustness. However, before we can get into further detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS, etc -- it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone. Heck, all radios in the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is knowing what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle. Read on...I'll talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write Part 2 =) WHAT IS INTERERENCE? In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands - i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level in the intended transmission. Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from your own network(s) or from an outside source. If the interfering RF signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the same tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference. If the opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not under your control, it is termed outside interference. Thus, the definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on technology, but ownership. In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs) self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more or less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have signals transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where they do not impact network performance. Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues. The techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly to license-exempt systems. THE LICENSE-EXEMPT CHALLENGE OF INTERFERENCE In the license-exempt bands, not only must self-interference be accounted for, but, given the nature of the regulations governing these bands, external interference must be designed for as well. This can be extremely challenging, as there is no way of knowing in advance where these outside signals may be or will be sourced from, or even how strong the interfering transmissions will be relative to the desired transmission. This aspect of the license-exempt bands represents the possible downside of license-exempt network operation. Yet as potentially damaging and unpredictable as external interference can be in license-exempt networks, a properly designed and implemented
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Patrick, I do not challenge Alvarion's top role in Licensed WiMax. I recognize it, as does most of the world. But the truth is... Some companies have publically announced that they plan to deliver a 5.8Ghz unlicensed product (as their primary focus), and others have announced that they are NOT planning to. Problems can be worked out, if they are worked on. If someone does not have a plan or desire to launch an unlicensed WiMax product, it is not likely that they will be working to fix unlicensed Wimax products. This world is full of smart people, and those that put their minds to it, will likely make more progress than those that do not. The plan that most manufacturers have, that plan to launch unlicensed Wimax, is to use WiMax chipsets, with their own proprietary MACs, so they can release better and working products sooner. After all, the bigger goal is just to deliver a better radio, and maybe even accomplish a possible upgrade path to True Wimax Firmware, if desired. How they will accomplish that, I feel is best left up to the clever radio designers, and I'll leave it at that for confidentiality courtesy. My prediction that Trango will be the first to launch an unlicened WiMax product is based on the fact that they have the most vested interest in launching one. They are currently without a next generation product, and they need its release. I'm not predicting it will initially be a certified compliant WiMax system. Trango currently has a quality MAC, and positiones Trango as a likely candidate to successfully pull off a custom WiMax chipset product. Alvarion on the other hand has very little benefit of launching an unlicensed Wimax product when it already has a strong VL product line and a strong licensed 802.16e product line. As far as your claim on the flawed UL Wimax standard I don't disagree. Every planned product in my mind is vapor, until it can be purchased, deployed, and tested by the operator. This again being the big reason that I personally am so fond of Alvarion VL products recently re-marketed to WISPs, as a solution that can be deployed today, without risk or chance of empty promises. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands. I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over 50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?) Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon. But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than sensitivity. At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the 20mbps Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances. OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly higher C/Is). OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can operate with less signal than 20mbps Canopy. And as you already expressed, with 17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster. But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can tolerate partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold. Aside
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Yes, but All I want is a better radio. The Dream is... Wimax is interoperabilty certified to a standard. The Reality is... Who can get me a better radio sooner. (See previous Post) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:53 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for UL. I did not say in detail why (at least not in this post). For sure it is because the MAC was developed for licensed (LMDS actually) -- that's my point. It was never conceived of for UL. --- Also, there IS a WiMAX UL standard -- the profile has been in place for over a year. There just is not equipment and there has been no UL certification yet. http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view The reason has nothing to do with Europe (Alvarion's Mariana Goldhamer led the harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and IEEE 802.16 several years ago). The main vendors in the Forum (the ones that really drive things) all know the deal with UL and they are in no rush to deliver WiMAX in it's current form onto the U.S. market. Also, the existing UL WiMAX profile is for 802.16d-2004. The whole of the Forum is focusing on 802.16e-2005, in fact, the entire WiMAX ecosystem you hear about it all relative to 802.16e-2005. Migrations from .16d-2005 to .16e-2005 are not software type changes. All that combined with the non-UL MAC = folks will be sorry for sinking CAPEX into certain UL WiMAX. Buyer beware and know the deal. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original 802.16 plan. Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the game. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ... except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at some future date if the hardware is WiMAX. I dunno ... I think the reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the ball with HyperLAN2. It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL 5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development licensing. (Maybe, maybe not) For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16 originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement IIRC). Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band? Sigh... Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands. I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over 50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?) Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon. But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be
[WISPA] att condition - broadband
By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area). ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income living units. 3 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Lonnie, Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that there isn't a reason not to get certified. The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any need. Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be used daily. Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent antenna? I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a collection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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] att condition - broadband
And there is no enforceable action that may or not take place if these voluntary commitments are not met, i.e., penalties and or fines after the merger is completed. Same smoke and mirrors BS from past mergers. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] keyword...offer... buzzword...Wi-max... aka fluff... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area). ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income living units. 3 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband
Which basically means WISPS have no choice but to protest and fight the merger. ATT/BellSouth Basic declared war on all competition with that statement. I was OK with it, when they had the option to leave less desirable business to third parties. But obligating themselves to have all consumers' business, creating a monopoly to wipe out all competition, is clearly backwards. By admitting they feel that they will be strong enough to deliver 100% coverage, is proof that they themselves will recognize themselves a monopoly in the re-creation. Peter, Where did you get that Arcticle? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area). ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income living units. 3 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- 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] att condition - broadband
I think WISPs should propose that ATT/BellSouth be allowed to merge only if they agree NOT to deploy wireless and NOT to rural areas :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband And there is no enforceable action that may or not take place if these voluntary commitments are not met, i.e., penalties and or fines after the merger is completed. Same smoke and mirrors BS from past mergers. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] keyword...offer... buzzword...Wi-max... aka fluff... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area). ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income living units. 3 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski -- 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] att condition - broadband
But with that bit of verbal fluff, they can already do that. They can offer DSL, if they enable all of their switches. With very little investment they can put DSLAMs a little farther out if need be. Of course they can offer Satellite, always have been able to. I would be further curious to see if they get this merger under these conditions, that they don't have to sell any switch capacity to competitors. Verizon up here in NY has stated at private PSC meetings that they will not upgrade any switches where they have to offer the facilities to competitors. This is just crap language to buffalo those who don't understand what is already out there..It's hard to watch people make decisions who are uninformed. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Peter R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area). ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income living units. 3 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
I think Patrick needs to build Lonnie a box. Star OS software / Alvarion radio. Look out! :-) Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: Lonnie, you are just doing what I wish I were smart enough to do -- write code people are willing to pay for. Software is always better than hardware: you avoid FCC hassles, you have no hard shipping or packaging costs, you need no production facilities, you don't have to negotiate purchase of and stock components, you can live anywhere, it can be instantly deployed, etc., etc. I've nothing but respect for what you've done. For all the same reasons, I'd think you were insane if you went into hardware in this business. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Seemed kind close to my home is all. All the Best in 2007. Lonnie This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
I figured you would probably use them all before the nuts would arrive... The UM's and UML's needed to be re-tooled due to the fact that after so many parts, tooling needs to be replaced. We went with the stamped bases due to the fact that the overall consistency is better on the parts and are as strong or stronger. Happy New Year! Regards, Ben Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the offer Ben. But we'll have all of these units out in the field long before you can get a box of nuts to me! If it REALLY bothers me, I'll just run down to the local hardware store and buy my own nuts. grin It's MUCH more fun to pick on you guys once in a while though. evil grin Say, I have a question for you. When and why did you move from the welded to the stamped base plates for the Sat. arms? I'd guess that they are a bit cheaper to make, but the material seems thinner. Are they as strong? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived George, We are definitely listening. This will be changed going forward. If you need some additional flange nuts (7/16), let me know. Same goes for you Marlon. Regards, Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of Alvarion I do have to side with him on this. I just called Ben Moore at PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me. They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things. Now I have to carry FOUR tools up the ladder. Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm? Those are the same size People have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing with. If there's a standard out there, please stick with it. We have enough things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange default username/password combos! BINGO, we found this out yesterday and hope that this is a temporary thing. Hope fully Ben is reading this.. Not a good thing to change. 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/ -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Patrick, We sell kits of the required components, no different than many others. Many people have had had our components certified for FCC and CE use since they do a volume business of assembled systems. In order to get FCC and CE approvals you must submit a complete system, as you are well aware, and since we do not assemble the parts into a system with a case we cannot, and are not required to, get approvals. The main thing we do is software but I have determined that people need to be led to the right hardware. I find it cuts down on my technical support when they use the components I have chosen after evaluating what is available. There should be no surprise there. We are evaluating whether to step back out of hardware, but we have to make sure that there will be a steady source of parts that meet my criteria. Gateworks appears ready and willing to sell direct to my customers so we are thinking we might let them step into the middle as we step out of the way. Our mesh continues to amaze people for its simplicity and performance and we definitely will be doing more work on mesh in 2007. Self healing backbones are pretty cool and are precisely what the Internet was supposed to be in the first place. Our overall philosophy is to remain true to the Internet design goals and try and extend the net, rather than having a simple bubble connecting to it. We feel that when customers build it our way (the Internet way) they are joining with and extending the Internet, rather than simply becoming a user of it. 2007 will be fun and we intend on turning some more heads our way as new developments start to become available. Lonnie On 12/29/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard. So then while I congratulate Lonnie's innovation, he needs to come clean and go legal. Sorry Lonnie, but yes if you are doing this it does gall me. It galls me when folks outside our borders go around the legal paths to our market. It's cheesy. It's dishonest. It's anti-competitive. And it's simply illegal. You've done all the work, why not go legal? If not, do you have any right to complain if someone copies your soft work and sells it as his own? Or do you think, Hey, that's different, he's damaging me! You guys may not like the rules, but they are there and the rest of us have to abide by them and incur all the expense required to play by the rules. And if you are an operator reading this, do you really think staying under the legal power limit makes you righteous? It makes you no more righteous that a guy beside you on the tower that does a beautiful NEC poster child of an install but does not have legal right to use the tower. I know many find this attitude insulting and I know as a vendor I'm supposed to just hold my tongue so as not to piss people off, because there will be those who might say, Because of that attitude I've never buy one Alvarion radio! Maybe so, but I can accept that because this stuff weakens all WISPs claims, all attempts to be regarded as legitimate players, and it sucker punches all of us who fight on your behalf. For sure, in doing so you can't ever complain about the person that sneaks into the ball game for free, right behind home plate, while you and your family paid. Don't you ever complain that your neighbor's kid gets a student grant because his parents hide income when yours can't qualify because your family makes too much. Don't you ever complain about a rancher or farmer getting over on you on water rights because no one's looking. And don't complain about the Yahoo next door using an illegal amp. Illegal WISPs equivocate by saying, Hey, I'm within the power limits. I'm not hurting anyone. Well, it's not true. You are hurting every legitimate WISP and every legitimate vendor, and in turn you hurt the entire industry. And some WISPs have the gall to say, why won't someone build X? Well, maybe because so many WISPs to save themselves a buck will buy illegal product that it discourages investment from legit players. When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing investments? And if I was a legal operator in the same market as an illegal competitor, I'd for sure use that against them with respect to winning roof and tower rights, fighting their interference in court, and informing their
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
I worked for a manufacturer that certified product with the FCC. The legality issue for FCC type acceptance can be argued in certain circumstances. Truth is, we didn't re-apply for FCC type acceptance every time we changed a resistor value or made some board change or modified the software. It's arguable that the need for FCC type acceptance is only required when a change in the product alters the rf modulation. When it was clear to us that it did, we'd re-apply for FCC type acceptance. If someone puts an FCC type accepted radio card into box with a single board computer combined with some OS on the SBC, I'm not sure there's any legality issue as far as the FCC is concerned. I think the question is whether there's anything in the SBC external software that's changed the rf characteristics of the radio card that's already been FCC type accepted. If not ... why is it illegal? Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Lonnie, Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that there isn't a reason not to get certified. The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any need. Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be used daily. Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent antenna? I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a collection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
[WISPA] Fiar use policy
This looks like it's well written and makes a ton of sense to me. http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?pageid=fairaccessContainer=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[BD8BE0839F414B4FB7CDDCA10EFA5369]] Anyone else implementing a program like this? Any suggested specifics? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM: Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!) Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list: The CPE90 is Marvell. The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based. The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based. The CPE80 was Atmel. -Damian Wallace I was looking for that Damian Wallace post! Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares. All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. :) (pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a while!) 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] Fiar use policy
Marlon, This is a VERY well written policy that works well. Since it is automated it also P***ES off subscribers. My father-in-law uses Hughes. He bought an electronic copy of Adobe Photoshop. The version he purchased was a 3CD-ROM set. He got through 1 CD rom and POOF he was on dialup speeds. This was a completely legitimate download of completely legitimate software and the Adobe download software was only doing something like 50KB/sec as it self throttles. Man o Man, that was 2 years ago and he STILL P***ES and moans about it! Due to this, I use a play nice policy. If I see some abnormal usage (and I get paged by my MRTG system) I simply cut the user off for a bit to break the bit-torrent session or I call the user. I tell them that they are on a shared system and that if they don't play nice then they can't play at all. Now, I have little to no competent competition so if the end user really wants to get mad then I let them out of their contract. My $.2(CAN) worth. ryan ps: if you ever venture over Stevens Pass. Email me, I'll buy you lunch while I pick your brain. :) Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote, On 12/29/2006 9:23 AM: This looks like it's well written and makes a ton of sense to me. http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?pageid=fairaccessContainer=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[BD8BE0839F414B4FB7CDDCA10EFA5369]] Anyone else implementing a program like this? Any suggested specifics? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys. (Why did I know that THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the kettle)) Here's how it works. If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 4 watts. 36dB. That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands. I forget what the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the ap. The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit. As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type. If you are using an ap radio (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less. Want to run a 15 dB hpol omni? Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on this one but I don't think so). Certainly if you want to put a sector on, so sorry, no can do. Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector. Here's the really fun part. Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system. AND the devices have to be keyed to each other. Meaning that the ap and the amp have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI. On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and match in the UNII band anyway. 900 mhz 4 watts max. You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with the radio. If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi that's 20dB or less. If they certified no yagis you can't use one. 2.4 ghz Starts at 4 watts. 30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain. For ever dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB. At 24 dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid. This gives you a total of 60 watts of output. Same rules apply though. If the radio isn't certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't do this. Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything with the LARGEST antenna of all common types! If they aren't certified with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the radios. 5.8 ghz Starts with 4 watts. 30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain. Go as big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power. Same other rules about certification apply. Is my network perfect? Nope. Is it all within eirp limits? You bet. Well, I've got one sector that used to be an omni and I need to pull our the amp but I'll save that project for better weather. And it's only hurting me (does create a LOT of interference on one of my other systems in town). Do I go around bragging about, or complaining about compliance issues? Nope. That said, I'm working very hard to correct any compliance issues we have. It'll take another year or two, but I'll have everything certified. Things are growing too fast and getting too good to think that we can stay under the radar. Eventually there will have to be a crack down. Or another change in the rules. I'm not sure which will happen, I prefer at least an eirp crackdown. It's hard enough competing in this industry without a bunch of people that don't understand that more is not better most of the time screwing up the airways. (BTW, that's the bad thing about rec. thresholds. They tend to raise the overall noise floor which, in the end, is the same as running more amps out there.) If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to you, go hire a new consultant. The one you have either doesn't know the rules or he's only in it to take your money. And if he'll take your money without worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you? Let the Marlon bashing begin! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Then you must not be aware that Lonnie is now also selling the complete package. The newest product is Star V3, Atheros cm9 and a gateworks customized board to Lonnies specs. It's called the WAR board, or Wireless Advanced Router. They come in 2 flavors, a 4 port 533MHz proc or a 2 port 266MHz proc, both with 2 ethernets. Can do 5,
RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Hire Jack Unger. He was patient enough to beat all the rules into my head eventually. C If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to you, go hire a new consultant. The one you have either doesn't know the rules or he's only in it to take your money. And if he'll take your money without worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Well said. You've covered issues in deploying your FCC certified radio product with various pre-approved antennas. Now, when it comes to selling a box with a computer and radio in it, the questions are a bit different. If it's a radio integrated onto a computer board, my belief it that it's got to be FCC accepted, certified, and bear the FCC ID, FCC certified label, and of course the This device complies with Part 15 of FCC Rules ... blah, blah, blah. If you're having a board manufactured with the 802.11a chips on it, I think you've got to get tested certified. On the other hand, if you're integrating an SBC with a radio card manufactured by another vendor who has already certified the card (it has the FCC ID, FCC certified logo, the Part 15 compliance) then I'm at a loss as to why this is not completely legal. You're not a manufacturer ... you're an integrator. I can't see why you'd need to re-test and certified a box with a radio that already bears the FCC certification. If you need to re-certify, then BestBuy'd need to certify to sell you a PC with the LAN card installed, CompUSA'd need to certify, etc. But if you integrate a certified radio, and reflash its code in a way that modifies its modulation behavior, then you've become a radio manufacturer ... and you need to actually go through a complete FCC type acceptance testing. However, in my opinion it's got to be modified at layer 1 (physical layer) to require this. Changing the Media Access Control (layer 2) or above is just not grounds to require re-certification IMHO. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor have ever played a lawyer on TV. I am actually not qualified to comment on the topics I have just commented on! :-) They are just my ignorant opinions, and I'd greatly appreciate anyone who could kick some sense into me should I be all wet. Peace, Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys. (Why did I know that THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the kettle)) Here's how it works. If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 4 watts. 36dB. That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands. I forget what the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the ap. The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit. As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type. If you are using an ap radio (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less. Want to run a 15 dB hpol omni? Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on this one but I don't think so). Certainly if you want to put a sector on, so sorry, no can do. Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector. Here's the really fun part. Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system. AND the devices have to be keyed to each other. Meaning that the ap and the amp have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI. On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and match in the UNII band anyway. 900 mhz 4 watts max. You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with the radio. If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi that's 20dB or less. If they certified no yagis you can't use one. 2.4 ghz Starts at 4 watts. 30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain. For ever dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB. At 24 dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid. This gives you a total of 60 watts of output. Same rules apply though. If the radio isn't certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't do this. Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything with the LARGEST antenna of all common types! If they aren't certified with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the radios. 5.8 ghz Starts with 4 watts. 30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain. Go as big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power. Same other rules about certification apply. Is my network perfect? Nope. Is it all within eirp limits? You bet. Well, I've got one sector that used
RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Tom, Our group, when at Nortel, developed a WEB cache product. That was during the days when a typical business had only a 56k digital line to the Internet. It was very tough to do a generalized cache because very few sites had expiration tags on their HTML components. However, a lot more do today and aggressive caching (just hoping that the content at the component URL wouldn't change) isn't so necessary to get reliable caching...just cache the page pieces until their expiration dates. However, then, your observation was very prescient; we couldn't get any site to understand that caching of their common components would reduce the load on their servers. More recently, most have gravitated toward a decent discipline in that regard. Actually, it's quite fun to explore pages today. You can see those dates with FireFox Mozilla under TOOLS/PAGEINFO/MEDIA. When you scroll through the subwindow of components for the page (try YAHOO.COM for example) you'll see expirations on most that are a month or two away and what caching can do. If you want to get very esoteric and have a lot more fun (And, Travis, unless you've tried this...I don't to insult you efforts but I just found out about this amazing...simply amazing plug-in for Firefox...it should be helpful in debugging your Web page); https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1843/ The firebug debugger (download it and, thereafter, bring up the HTML debugging window with an F-12 key) gives you amazing insights into the page. For example, open the debugger window and select debug tab and, when you pass your cursor over the exposed understructure displayed in the debug window, it will highlight on the real page, above, the part associated with the understructure component. It's easy to find parents and children of things, and other stuff that would otherwise be an intractable mess. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Why is it politically correct for a Appliance vendor to charge for accelleration, and not an ISP, from a Net Neutrality perspective? As WISPs, shouldn't we be charging Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, a price for offering cached services (on-net) to them, and reducing their bandwidth use of their broadband connections and improving their user's experiences on your network? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi, We've had one for almost 5 years now... but there isn't anything to play with. They ship you three 1u servers and a Cisco switch. You plug everything in and turn it on. They do all the admin, config, setup, etc. and don't allow you access whatsoever. But it does work great. Microsoft updates come VERY fast (over 10Mbps speeds) and many other sites are just as fast. However, I have no idea who to contact, as we were approached by them. Travis Microserv David E. Smith wrote: George Rogato wrote: You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your network. All free. Any idea on how many subs you need before this becomes an option? I've heard that Akamai will do this, and I love having new toys in my NOC to play with, but I've never been able to find out just how you go about getting one. 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/ -- 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] latest ATT filing
Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment. -Matt Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] speaking of CPE
I am wondering if anyone has these deployed: http://www.airlink101.com/products/ar504.html We don't prefer Linksys at all. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing
Interesting comment Within 1 year return all own 2.5Ghz licenses or leases to a third party entity. In otherwords they can sell it to the highest bidder, apposed to donate it to public use. Also promising $10/month DSL. Ouch. Its not easy to enforce mandatory coverage, but it is pretty easy to enforce the sale price. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment. -Matt Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- 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] Fiar use policy
My $0.0002(US) worth - we need to begin educating our customers and implementing fair access policies to enforce them and then we need to content label our services so that our customers understand what they are getting with each type of service. Peer to Peer on a pc loaded with stolen music running on autopilot and unlimited data transfer for $39.95/mo, is not a sustainable business model. Neither is singling out suspected abusers and calling them or cutting off their service when some unwritten and arbitrary limit or useage pattern is noticed. The problem is that implementing these systems, is time consuming and complicated. It is also not a default feature of most networks, to have accounting per individual user. Nor is it a default design decision to have an effective single point of rate limiting control that applies to individual users. How many of you have individually rate limited 2.4ghz subs at their cpe, for example? Not many I bet. How many of you have subs directly plugged into a switch port? Probbly lots. Unfortunately, to implement a realistic fap you need to have both elements I mentioned - per user accounting, and per user traffic control - and you don't have this unless you've built your network to provide it, and going back to implement these things is disruptive and costly. Some may settle for traffic control at the noc where their bridged subscriber traffic is rate limited and throttled by a bandwidth arbitrator, but still it doesn't stop high rate traffic (port scanning viruses, anyone?) from getting into the network in the first place and doesn't provide nearly as effective limits as having it at the cpe side. Mike- ryan Spott wrote: Man o Man, that was 2 years ago and he STILL P***ES and moans about it! Due to this, I use a play nice policy. If I see some abnormal usage (and I get paged by my MRTG system) I simply cut the user off for a bit to break the bit-torrent session or I call the user. I tell them that they are on a shared system and that if they don't play nice then they can't play at all. Now, I have little to no competent competition so if the end user really wants to get mad then I let them out of their contract. My $.2(CAN) worth. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Training Contractors
I am going to attempt to hire some new CPE installers, as contractors, paid by the job (peice work). (I see market rate around $100-$150 per job -residential). Finding guys that ALREADY know how to do it correctly, is not likely. This brings me to Training. How are you training the installers? Are you making them do a mandatory time period shadowing/apprenticing with one of your existing installers? If so, does their pay change for that period? Are you bringing them in-house for a significant duration Trainging Class? For example, a 1 week class room training? What minimum requirements do you expect them to have to be worthy to be trained? I hear that many are successfull hiring X-Satelite TV installers, but they are not likely to have extensive TCPIP experience. Its not easy finding a guy thats willing to climb a ladder daily and also had his free time being spent as a computer geek. They are two different breed people (The worken man and the intellectual). Do you train the geek to climb a ladder, or train the ladder climber to be a geek? I find that applicants that have physical labor backgrounds work faster, and enjoy their job as being a wireless installer, as adds many new challenges and is easier work. But the training can be tough starting at ground zero, how to configure the LAPTOP with an IP address. When I employed, and paid by the hour or salary, it was pretty easy to figure out who to hire. But contracting, a whole new set of issues arise. 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] Training Contractors
Find some satellite TV contractors that want to know more. Ive found them to be pretty skilled and slick at doing quality installs. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Training Contractors I am going to attempt to hire some new CPE installers, as contractors, paid by the job (peice work). (I see market rate around $100-$150 per job -residential). Finding guys that ALREADY know how to do it correctly, is not likely. This brings me to Training. How are you training the installers? Are you making them do a mandatory time period shadowing/apprenticing with one of your existing installers? If so, does their pay change for that period? Are you bringing them in-house for a significant duration Trainging Class? For example, a 1 week class room training? What minimum requirements do you expect them to have to be worthy to be trained? I hear that many are successfull hiring X-Satelite TV installers, but they are not likely to have extensive TCPIP experience. Its not easy finding a guy thats willing to climb a ladder daily and also had his free time being spent as a computer geek. They are two different breed people (The worken man and the intellectual). Do you train the geek to climb a ladder, or train the ladder climber to be a geek? I find that applicants that have physical labor backgrounds work faster, and enjoy their job as being a wireless installer, as adds many new challenges and is easier work. But the training can be tough starting at ground zero, how to configure the LAPTOP with an IP address. When I employed, and paid by the hour or salary, it was pretty easy to figure out who to hire. But contracting, a whole new set of issues arise. 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/607 - Release Date: 12/28/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing
Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment... http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html jack Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing
Hi Jack, We never hooked up to discuss things? I see you are alive and well though. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:23:47 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment... http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html jack Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Hi Ryan, My favorite AP setup for 2.4 is StarOS/Orinoco card/YDI amplifier/YDI 180deg sector antenna - however some of these parts are getting harder to find and/or don't work for a lot of situations. So here is the most common one that I am deploying as of late: StarOS/prism2511/tranzeo h-pol sector A WRAP with a 2511 will serve about 50 or 60 customers in 2.4. A loaded up PC with four Orinoco cards and four sectors will serve about 250-260 customers. Some have said that you can do more, but that is the most I've been able to do at one site. If you don't need radius authentication, or want to use hotspot-style authentication, I'm sure that a WRAP board with one of the new atheros chipset b/g cards would probably be the most compatible with a CPQ. FWIW, I have 1000+ subs on my staros access points, and the breakdown is probably 50% 200-15, 30% 80-15 and 20% CPQ radios. The CPQs are the best of them all for performance, reliability and ease of installation. Hope that helps. I'll take a shot at the other issues surfacing in this thread later. :^) Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ryan Spott wrote: N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM: Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!) Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list: The CPE90 is Marvell. The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based. The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based. The CPE80 was Atmel. -Damian Wallace I was looking for that Damian Wallace post! Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares. All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. :) (pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a while!) 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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g
Sounds like I'd want to stay away from YOU for the same reason... Brian Webster wrote: Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] capstan
Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan. Anybody have any pointers to a good one? Thanks Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] capstan
Chris, I bought a 120v model this summer. We love it. http://www.myte.com/products_utility.html http://www.myte.com/distributors.asp?State=oh Happy New Years! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:36 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] capstan Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan. Anybody have any pointers to a good one? Thanks Chris -- 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] latest ATT filing
More comments... http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/ http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3 http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579 jack Jack Unger wrote: Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment... http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html jack Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g
Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in Federal Prison as we speak ? Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost is only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or stupid filtering like Wild Blue does JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible, scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be great. Have a nice day. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- 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: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
In general what is considered a better combination, lower powered radio w/ higher gain antenna or higher powered radio w/ lower gain antenna? Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys. (Why did I know that THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the kettle)) Here's how it works. If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 4 watts. 36dB. That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands. I forget what the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the ap. The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit. As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type. If you are using an ap radio (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less. Want to run a 15 dB hpol omni? Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on this one but I don't think so). Certainly if you want to put a sector on, so sorry, no can do. Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector. Here's the really fun part. Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system. AND the devices have to be keyed to each other. Meaning that the ap and the amp have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI. On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and match in the UNII band anyway. 900 mhz 4 watts max. You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with the radio. If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi that's 20dB or less. If they certified no yagis you can't use one. 2.4 ghz Starts at 4 watts. 30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain. For ever dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB. At 24 dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid. This gives you a total of 60 watts of output. Same rules apply though. If the radio isn't certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't do this. Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything with the LARGEST antenna of all common types! If they aren't certified with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the radios. 5.8 ghz Starts with 4 watts. 30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain. Go as big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power. Same other rules about certification apply. Is my network perfect? Nope. Is it all within eirp limits? You bet. Well, I've got one sector that used to be an omni and I need to pull our the amp but I'll save that project for better weather. And it's only hurting me (does create a LOT of interference on one of my other systems in town). Do I go around bragging about, or complaining about compliance issues? Nope. That said, I'm working very hard to correct any compliance issues we have. It'll take another year or two, but I'll have everything certified. Things are growing too fast and getting too good to think that we can stay under the radar. Eventually there will have to be a crack down. Or another change in the rules. I'm not sure which will happen, I prefer at least an eirp crackdown. It's hard enough competing in this industry without a bunch of people that don't understand that more is not better most of the time screwing up the airways. (BTW, that's the bad thing about rec. thresholds. They tend to raise the overall noise floor which, in the end, is the same as running more amps out there.) If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to you, go hire a new consultant. The one you have either doesn't know the rules or he's only in it to take your money. And if he'll take your money without worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you? Let the Marlon bashing begin! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA]
Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing - Done Deal
Looks like it's a done deal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_bi_ge/att_bellsouth Should be interesting to see: 1. If ATT lives up to the terms of the deal. 2. If anybody watches to see if ATT lives up to the terms of the deal. 3. If there's any enforcement action when somebody (assuming somebody does watch) sees that ATT is not living up to the terms of the deal. 4. Who gets the 2.5 GHz spectrum. 5. What the competitive telecommunications/Internet landscape looks like 3 years from now. jack Jack Unger wrote: More comments... http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/ http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3 http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579 jack Jack Unger wrote: Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment... http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html jack Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an open access point. Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife, would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and used her for a bit ? Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house, does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb Cajun boys. JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Holy brainfade, JohnnyO. Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head. What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) the sinking of the Titanic. jack JohnnyO wrote: Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in Federal Prison as we speak ? Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost is only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or stupid filtering like Wild Blue does JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible, scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be great. Have a nice day. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] latest ATT filing
why? You're the only one against it *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment. -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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
JohnnyO wrote: What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an open access point. I think that you will find that using an open access point to allow a first-responder (police, fire, etc.) to communicate with the rest of the world would not be considered a crime. Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife, would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and used her for a bit ? Well, you better be wearing your strongest jock cup or else be prepared to suffer serious consquences when her toe or knee contacts your private parts. Here's my minimum recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/SG-Profile-Abdominal-Protective-Jock/dp/B0009ZBFPK Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house, does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb Cajun boys. OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. jack JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Holy brainfade, JohnnyO. Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head. What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) the sinking of the Titanic. jack JohnnyO wrote: Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in Federal Prison as we speak ? Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost is only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or stupid filtering like Wild Blue does JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible, scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be great. Have a nice day. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -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] capstan
I never heard of them. Nice. What would one cost? Brian Rick Harnish wrote: Chris, I bought a 120v model this summer. We love it. http://www.myte.com/products_utility.html http://www.myte.com/distributors.asp?State=oh Happy New Years! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:36 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] capstan Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan. Anybody have any pointers to a good one? Thanks Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Not the wife story again.. JohnnyO wrote: What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an open access point. Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife, would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and used her for a bit ? Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house, does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb Cajun boys. JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Holy brainfade, JohnnyO. Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head. What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) the sinking of the Titanic. jack JohnnyO wrote: Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in Federal Prison as we speak ? Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost is only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or stupid filtering like Wild Blue does JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible, scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be great. Have a nice day. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] speaking of CPE
Use the Linksys wrt 54g as an Router/CPE, also reflash with dd-wrt firmware including the models with vxworks. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha W.D.McKinney wrote: I am wondering if anyone has these deployed: http://www.airlink101.com/products/ar504.html We don't prefer Linksys at all. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Mark McElvy wrote: In general what is considered a better combination, lower powered radio w/ higher gain antenna or higher powered radio w/ lower gain antenna? Mark Rule of thumbs, keep the beamwidth to a minimum and use the lowest power needed to get the job done. These two rules will let lots of people play in the same sandbox and give you the best performance. 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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
I have used a tr5a against an MT AP and no problems. I also use Tranzeo 6000 for AP's and really don't see them slowing down. They also act as Backhaul AP's (at the same time) in PTMP mode for other microcell backhauls. Granted we don't have amount of clients that you have. We actually use the CPQ as a Backhaul CPE for some of our lighter microcells. My main Gateway is an MT, my Router board (with a valid License) is packed away waiting for me to decide something great to do with it. Come on Butch tell me something :-) This why I like to follow a standard, Tranzeo knows (in no uncertain terms) that I will replace them, just like I did the Smartbridges, CB3's and Demarc's, but I still have Hawking HWBA11's out their (Damn customers can't see anything wring with them). This is my company and I run it my way not their way. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Ryan Spott wrote: N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM: Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!) Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list: The CPE90 is Marvell. The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based. The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based. The CPE80 was Atmel. -Damian Wallace I was looking for that Damian Wallace post! Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares. All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. :) (pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a while!) 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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
WISPs should certainly be involved; some already are... Also, some WISPs have ham employees who are already involved and trained in emergency communications... Carl A jeptha wrote: This where wisps come in, they should be part of the emergency response plan, not a half-assed after thought. I have been trying to make my community understand that a well built rural wireless solution should be part of every County's emergency plan.. in our ham operator's case, a quick call or knowledge of encryption used should get them on the network and to the necessary info and comms req. You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees. Carl A Jeptha http://www.jeptha.com 905-349-2027 skype cajeptha Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. jack *Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ? JohnnyO -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
JohnnyO, Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this email. Thanks, jack JohnnyO wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. jack *Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ? JohnnyO Answers: 1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 14th year serving the broadband wireless community. 2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion. Have a Happy New Year, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
*** Jack Wrote . ---2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion. Jack - would you mind asking an FCC Official if this is legal or illegal ? I certainly hope that a ham operator can't break laws in order to steal an internet connection from an UNKNOWING person or business... The idea of them using someone's internet connection WITH permission during an emergency is COMPLETELY different then them just loggin on at will to an OPEN access point. It's illegal if they don't have permission. JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g JohnnyO, Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this email. Thanks, jack JohnnyO wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. jack *Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ? JohnnyO Answers: 1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 14th year serving the broadband wireless community. 2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion. Have a Happy New Year, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Jack Unger wrote: Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. While a ham could certainly make use of unlicensed spectrum, consumer access points, and best effort internet connections, I would think the vast majority use 2-way radios similar to what they used years before Wi-Fi even existed in the face of an emergency. The hams that I have met tend to incorporate new technology in sensible ways as opposed to some folks that believe Wi-Fi is the answer to all. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. Such experts would certainly be able to come up with a better emergency plan. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. I don't see it as being realistic and practical. I can think of very few circumstances where a little bit of planning wouldn't provide for reliable communications during an emergency. In a circumstance where there is a proper communication plan that fails because the disaster is so great I'm sure the consumer's open access point on a best effort internet connection isn't going to work anyway. It sure did seem like all the organizations with mobile satellite equipment were communicating just fine in recent disasters. A portable VSAT on a usage plan is quite cheap and very effective. -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] latest ATT filing - Done Deal
I just can't help but think that all these mergers and speedy, favorable rulings and the continued sellout of competition to att is little more than a reward for it's blatantely illegal cooperation in the warrantless wiretapping of the internet by the nsa. ATT was broken up for some very good reasons, and I see no reason to have allowed it's reassembly other than the fact that it's easier to deal with one big concern than thousands of little tiny ones when it comes to domestic spying Tom DeReggi wrote: The problem isn't the final negotiation of the final hour of the merger terms, as effort was put to add a few extras for consumers and competitors, to take attention off the fact that consumers just got screwed. The problem is that the merger was approved in the first place by the justice department in October. Today's deal closing was no surprise. But none the less one more tragic loss for competition. We all know any concession offered is pointless, when they can't be inforced, once a monopoly has taken over and is in control. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing - Done Deal Looks like it's a done deal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_bi_ge/att_bellsouth Should be interesting to see: 1. If ATT lives up to the terms of the deal. 2. If anybody watches to see if ATT lives up to the terms of the deal. 3. If there's any enforcement action when somebody (assuming somebody does watch) sees that ATT is not living up to the terms of the deal. 4. Who gets the 2.5 GHz spectrum. 5. What the competitive telecommunications/Internet landscape looks like 3 years from now. jack Jack Unger wrote: More comments... http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/ http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3 http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579 jack Jack Unger wrote: Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment... http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html jack Matt Liotta wrote: http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Johnny, you are probably right. There was a guy who was arrested recently sitting in his car in front of someones house and we all discussed it and there was 2 opinions: 1- If it aint secured, it's open and it 'should' be ok. 2- if you don't have permission your stealing regardless of it being an unsecured ap. So there ya go, your probably right, but I bet you'd have an awfully hard time getting anyone to listen in the event of an emergency.. I doubt a cop is going to arrest anyone. So whats the point? George JohnnyO wrote: *** Jack Wrote . ---2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion. Jack - would you mind asking an FCC Official if this is legal or illegal ? I certainly hope that a ham operator can't break laws in order to steal an internet connection from an UNKNOWING person or business... The idea of them using someone's internet connection WITH permission during an emergency is COMPLETELY different then them just loggin on at will to an OPEN access point. It's illegal if they don't have permission. JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g JohnnyO, Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this email. Thanks, jack JohnnyO wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet connection. -Matt Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. jack *Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ? JohnnyO Answers: 1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 14th year serving the broadband wireless community. 2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion. Have a Happy New Year, jack -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g
Brian, I can send you a couple for free if you need some for your emergency response team. I've got a bunch of Teletronics 802.11B EZ Bridges, 100mw and 200mw, that I pulled and replaced with Lonnie's war boards. They work fine. Have a web interface for survey and configuration and are just dumb bridges that you will need some kind of gateway router. While I'm at it, does anyone still use these? I'd make you are really good deal. George Brian Webster wrote: I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible, scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be great. Have a nice day. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g
Jack Unger wrote: I think that you will find that using an open access point to allow a first-responder (police, fire, etc.) to communicate with the rest of the world would not be considered a crime. Technically, yes, it probably is. No prosecutor in this country would touch it with a ten-foot law dictionary, of course, but it's still (I think) a crime. Unless it isn't... Many (most?) jurisdictions do have special exceptions for law enforcement and emergency personnel, allowing (for instance) firefighters in civilian vehicles to speed and run red lights, and allowing police to commandeer those same civilian vehicles. I don't know whether those are specific exemptions, or if there's a more general we're saving lives we can do what we need to do law, and it surely varies from place to place. OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do what needs to be done. Moreally and ethically, it may be right, but that doesn't make it legal. I'd argue that, especially when lives are at stake, right trumps legal, but that doesn't make the issues with legal disappear. 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/
RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Hi Ryan, I realize this is somewhat tangential to your main point, but I wanted to point out that EIGRP/IGRP aren't standard protocols, nor will they work with any other router, necessarily. If you are shying away from proprietary equipment, Cisco's proprietary routing protocols are the last things you should be using. Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Patrick Leary wrote: Ryan, Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC- certified) brands? Are you trying to troll? :) I am using all Tranzeo gear now. I am also looking for other options. I have 2 6500 series radios up at this site. They are currently sucking wind with 30 clients each. I ask about the Mikrotik/Star-OS stuff as it appears that there is nothing illegal about them. I find this analogous to my father in law building a kit Cobra in his barn. As long as all the parts fit together in a compatible and non- dangerous way then they are considered safe and licensable by the local DMV. There's no need to go the illegal route and that includes even price these days. Plus, with a legal product you'll get the benefit of support and a warranty. Even with support and a warranty I find myself hesitant to add additional clients to this setup. I see others on this list using these other products with decent support from the community and it seems, reasonable results. I like the Alvarion stuff, I really do. But I have seen entire countys/states get messed over by buying a proprietary system and then the system creator suddenly goes under or pulls a Motorola and forces a multi-million dollar upgrade. I tend to shy away from proprietary equipment unless it is able to use standardized protocols (like Cisco's EIGRP vs IGRP routing. You use the Enhanced if you use all Cisco, but plain non-enhanced compatible with any other router if you don't want the wiz-bang stuff.) Now. I ask again the last question: What works with the Tranzeo CPQ clients? Do you know? ! :) ryan Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:22 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Sorry for the cross post. I am looking at replacing my array of TR6500s with something that can handle more than 30 concurrent users in a graceful manner. I have been looking at the Microtik line of products with an SR2 400mW Atheros radio in it. I know Matt Larsen uses StarOS with Lucent Cards Does anyone have any input as to what direction to go? What works with the Tranzeo CPQ clients? Thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ ** ** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). ** ** ** ** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). ** ** ** ** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. ** ** -- 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Carl A jeptha wrote: Backhaul CPE for some of our lighter microcells. My main Gateway is an MT, my Router board (with a valid License) is packed away waiting for me to decide something great to do with it. Come on Butch tell me something :-) Ummmyou can send it to me. :-) -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ESRI Cable Boundaries / Electronics and Internet MarketPotential
On 12/29/06, Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want to make sure what data they are giving you, is it just the franchise boundaries or the built out cable areas? The built out data is hard to find or very expensive if available. Good point .. it may actually be the former. The product is described here: http://www.esri.com/data/community_data/cable-boundary/overview.html -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TRUCKPC
AHA I've been wondering where the hell that TruckPC request has been coming from!! Occasionally, I have techs who have left the radius authentication disabled on an access point and the dhcp logs will start to fill up with requests from TruckPC. They were coming from access points all over the place and I was a little perplexed. It is interesting to watch our radius logs too. I have one AP overlooking a little town of 200 people, but it is right next to an interstate and the radius log from that AP is always showing logins. Must be all the trucker laptops whizzing by looking for an open AP. I've been toying with the idea of turning on hotspot functionality so that we can provide transient access, and this is probably a good reason to do it. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ralph wrote: Well, JohnnyO- you might want to also educate these people, then: http://www.drivertech.com/ Their product, a Truckpc is being installed in many fleet vehicles. One fleet that comes to mind is US Express, a long haul package hauling service http://www.usxpress.com/ The device communicates back to the office via Satellite, Cellular, or WiFi- whichever is available and cheaper. According to the manufacturer, it can hunt down open and unsecured access points and do your HIGHLY illegal act of connecting and sending its data whenever it can. I'm not endorsing this behavior, of course, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the list. How do I know? My WISP operates hotspot portals that allow casual users to make use of our mountain and tower-top sectors of WiFi. These cover major portions of several towns. These towns have a major Interstate route passing through them. I began noticing numerous TRUCKPC leases being granted by the DHCP servers in these towns. I became concerned about what they were, so I did a little internet research and ended up on the phone with technical support at Drivertech. This is who confirmed how these devices operate and who the probable fleet culprit was. If anyone has portals near major truck routes, check your DHCP logs and see if you see the TRUCKPC SSID grabbing leases. You may want to either block it or contact these folks and work out a roaming agreement. Serious part over, joke follows: This message brought to you by the World's largest free wireless internet provider. Look for our SSID wherever you go: Linksys. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for802.11b/g Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in Federal Prison as we speak ? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
NOW: Emergency Broadband Data Needs. WAS: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE...
Matt, Please see my responses and additional information inline. Thanks, jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to make use of hams today. While a ham could certainly make use of unlicensed spectrum, consumer access points, and best effort internet connections, I would think the vast majority use 2-way radios similar to what they used years before Wi-Fi even existed in the face of an emergency. It's not a question of using EITHER 2-way radios OR Wi-Fi access points. Hams do use two-way radios, their own very high frequency (VHF) 144-148 MHz and ultra high frequency (UHF) 450-470 MHz repeater networks for local and regional VOICE and low-speed (packet) data coverage and high frequency (HF) 3.5-30 MHz equipment for longer-distance (cross-country) and International VOICE and low-speed data coverage. The new needs today are to be able to transmit and receive data at BROADBAND rates, for example to be able to connect and share high-speed data with existing BROADBAND public safety data networks as well as the Internet. To meet these BROADBAND data needs either license-free Part 15 equipment or Part 15 equipment modified to work under Part 97 (amateur radio regulations) works to meet these broadband data connectivity needs. The hams that I have met tend to incorporate new technology in sensible ways as opposed to some folks that believe Wi-Fi is the answer to all. A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are communications experts. Such experts would certainly be able to come up with a better emergency plan. Agreed, and they have but again, to meet the BROADBAND data needs, low-cost Wi-Fi equipment operated under either Part 15 or Part 97 is a natural solution, both at the emergency scene and to connect the on-scene personnel to the outside world. This is an obvious opportunity for smart WISPs to be involved and to offer to provide network connectivity in times of emergency. For example, I just introduced one local Southern California Police Department to the local WISP that covers the town. After discussions between the PD and the WISP, the Police Department decided to put a Trango CPE on the top of the 40-ft telescoping mast of the new Emergency Communications Command Vehicle (RV-sized). The local WISP agreed to provide connectivity at no charge when the command vehicle is deployed at an emergency scene one or two days every few months. The PD gets backup BROADBAND connectivity that they can afford and the WISP gets a lot of free very good publicity. BTW, the command vehicle will also have a satellite link and 3G connectivity so the WISP connectivity may not be used very often but IT IS THERE if it is needed. For voice connectivity, the command vehicle will contain all the standard voice radio systems. This is what most people would agree is a good communications plan. The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic and practical. I don't see it as being realistic and practical. I can think of very few circumstances where a little bit of planning wouldn't provide for reliable communications during an emergency. Again, it's not an either/or situation. Unlicensed spectrum can and does fill a very real broadband communications need for emergency and public safety personnel. Both reliable VOICE and BROADBAND DATA/VIDEO needs exist now. Smart WISPs won't have to think very long before figuring out that there is an important and beneficial role for them to play in meeting their communities emergency communications needs. I don't want to beat this horse to death (horsey??... horsey??) so I'll sign off now. jack In a circumstance where there is a proper communication plan that fails because the disaster is so great I'm sure the consumer's open access point on a best effort internet connection isn't going to work anyway. It sure did seem like all the organizations with mobile satellite equipment were communicating just fine in recent disasters. A portable VSAT on a usage plan is quite cheap and very effective. -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List:
