Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US

2007-01-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. If 
that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them out 
again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, its the 
only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its word is 
protects the integrity of the FCC.


I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their findings.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetition in the US



You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have 
fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it might 
be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter

--
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

   The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 
698 MHz within
180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas
that otherwise have no connectivity to broadband 
Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US

2007-01-24 Thread Peter R.
That actually may be the head of the nail.  Maybe not everyone DID 
fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data 
that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the 
gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs.


Someone needs to verify the raw data.

- Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form 
fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never 
honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding 
firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate data, 
and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC.


I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their 
findings.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetition in the US



You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they 
have fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it 
might be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] BelAir Networks VAR Program

2007-01-24 Thread Peter R.

Anybody using BelAir?
They have made some stabs at doing Muni RFP's but had some capital issues.

http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/71h17132810.html

BelAir Networks, a mobile broadband multiservice wireless mesh network 
provider, today announced an expanded VAR channel program.


BelAir Networks’ VAR program offers sales, technical and marketing 
support customized to each partner’s goals. The program includes three 
tiers with increasing levels of incentives; technical and sales 
certification through BelAir University Webinars; market development 
funds, rewards and rebates; and a partner advisory council.


“We have enhanced and expanded our program in response to strong 
interest from VARs who want to take advantage of the opportunities 
offered now in the wireless mesh space. In addition to industry-leading 
incentives, the program offers many benefits including market 
development support and comprehensive technical training – all designed 
to give our partners a quick ramp-up in this fast-paced market,” stated 
Jim Freeze, senior vice president of marketing and alliances at BelAir 
Networks.


BelAir Networks and its partners have made more than 200 deployments of 
wireless mesh networks in cities such as Minneapolis, London and 
Toronto, as well as high-profile venues such as Dolphin Stadium in Miami.


BelAir Networks www.belairnetworks.com http://www.belairnetworks.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] SmartPhone Happiness...

2007-01-24 Thread paul hendry
I'm running putty on my E70. Is great to be on a roof with mobile in one 
hand whilst you pan your StarOS or Mikrotik cpe ;) Only down side seems 
to be the lack of a tab key.

-Original Message-
From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 23 January 2007 19:32
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...

Matt,

Have you had a chance to play with SSH utilities.  I'm looking for the
same phone and have heard others using it to SSH into their Star-OS
boxes with good success.

Mobile SSH has a free trial and should work with the E70.



On 1/22/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It was finally time to replace my Nokia 6800 with 600 hours and a 
broken
 screen from being dropped too many times, so I decided to get a Nokia
 E70 phone.

 It has been a little bit of a challenge, but it is pretty close to 
cell
 phone nirvana.  It has been able to do I have wanted to accomplish 
with
 a PDA or cell phone combined.

 The first main issue was getting the phone contacts/calendar/notes
 synchronized with my PC.  My previous phone was extremely flaky when
 used with the Nokia PC Suite software, and only connected about one in
 every 10 times.   I had to install, reinstall, run a registry cleaner
 and then reinstall the software but I was finally able to get a 
reliable
 connection between my PC and phone.  Once accomplished, I was able to
 get all of my items synced up in a repeatable, reliable fashion.   
With
 all their available resources, I am amazed that Nokia was not able to
 this process worked out better.

 The second item was seeing how Internet access worked on the phone.
 GPRS seems to work fine, but I was more interested in the wifi
 connectivity feature of the phone.  The E70 will browse for an 
available
 access point and the process for connecting is pretty straightforward.
 I have to pass on huge props for the Internet browser on the E70.  I
 would prefer using the smaller screen E70 browser than the browser on
 all of the PocketPCs that I have used.  It is that good.  It was
 reliable, viewable, easy to navigate and there have been no weird 
format
 surprises.   All told - the Internet access components work very well.
 I have not gotten the instant messaging to work yet, but it looks like
 other have, so I will still have that to work on.

 The last and most interesting piece was the struggle to get VOIP 
working
 on a cell phone.  My cell coverage at my house and many other places 
in
 my service area is very spotty, so I have been looking forward to 
having
 a phone that could roam to wifi and keep my roaming minutes down to a
 minimum.  I was able to find a couple of links to guides on how to set
 the phone up with an asterisk voip server and was finally able to get 
it
 to connect to my office voip phone system.  After all the hassles and
 reported problems on user forums, I was very pleasantly surprised by 
the
 performance of the voip part of the E70.  It is actually clearer than
 regular cell calls, with just a little bit of breakup when the wifi
 signal gets low.  Best of all, my outgoing calls all go through my
 office system when I am in range of a wifi access point, meaning less
 minutes on my cell phone plan.  I should also be able to use the voip
 when I go to remote tower sites that used to not work at all on the
 regular cell network or incurred roaming charges.

 All in all, I am very impressed with the E70.  I am going to 
officially
 retire my iPaqs to other tasks and use this as my primary 
PIM/phone/voip
 phone.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com

 PS - I purchased my E70 from Tiger Direct for about $435, but they are
 also available at voip-supply.com for $385.



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
Chad Halsted
The Computer Works
Conway, AR
www.tcworks.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/


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Mario Pommier
Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we 
can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential 
and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my 
data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. 
Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for 
confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want 
it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or 
secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when 
the data was gathered.


If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in 
saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because 
it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this 
bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting 
the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the 
form process is still a matter of law, like it or not.

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

That actually may be the head of the nail.  Maybe not everyone DID 
fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... 
Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and 
the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs.


Someone needs to verify the raw data.

- Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form 
fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never 
honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is 
holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting accurate 
data, and standing behind its word is protects the integrity of the FCC.


I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their 
findings.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetition in the US



You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they 
have fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it 
might be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US

2007-01-24 Thread Jory Privett
I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared.  I think 
he is against that as much as anyone.   BUT  what needs to happen is that 
someone needs to check and verify the data that is collected.  The FCC does 
no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could have on DSL line in a zip code 
and therefore claim that broadband is available for the entire area.  This 
is the kind of thing that needs to be checked and verified.


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetitionin the US



The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential 
and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my 
data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. 
Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for 
confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it 
shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or 
secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the 
data was gathered.


If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in 
saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it 
is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites 
me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 
477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form 
process is still a matter of law, like it or not.

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

That actually may be the head of the nail.  Maybe not everyone DID 
fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously flawed... Data 
that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that the FCC and the 
gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs.


Someone needs to verify the raw data.

- Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form fillers. 
If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never honestly fill them 
out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is holding firm, as they know, 
its the only way to keep getting accurate data, and standing behind its 
word is protects the integrity of the FCC.


I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their 
findings.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetition in the US



You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they have 
fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it 
might be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter




--
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been 
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything 
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. 
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built 
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these 
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.

Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before 
we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will 
enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed 
wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no 
connectivity to broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread RickG

What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies?
-RickG

On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard.
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.
Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

 Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum
 becoming unlicensed?
 Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before
 we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before
 we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?
 Thanks.

 Mario

 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 All,

 This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become
 unlicensed.
 As quoted from the press release;

   The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit
 license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz
 and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will
 enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed
 wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no
 connectivity to broadband Internet.

 Links below;
 http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Steve Stroh


John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/



Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
lipped about it though.

Scriv


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Mac Dearman
This spectrum is the Goose's Golden egg for all of us in VERY rural areas.
It will absolutely revolutionize N. Louisiana as far as internet/intranet
access. We cover about ~12% of Louisiana, but cant reach but about 4 out 10
when we do site surveys.

 Steve - - you are always full of info and remain to be a WISPs #1
proponent!! Thanks for all you do.


Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Stroh
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:45 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

 The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
 created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
 about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
 anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
 unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
 equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
 unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
 lipped about it though.
 Scriv

---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Jack Unger

Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the 
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I 
expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively.



Mario Pommier wrote:

Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we 
can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro







--
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Jason

List,

   Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:


1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.


2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to 
a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).


3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to 
download.


4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored 
in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).


I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
know the actual values):


1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg.

4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.


Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am especially 
interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.


Jason


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadband competition in the US

2007-01-24 Thread Jack Unger

And yet another point of view:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/nichols



Yes, there has been an Abolish the FCC movement alive for at least 10 
and probably 20 years. FOMHR (For Our Many Happy Readers) here are two 
(of the many) points of view:


http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5226979.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/05/b677863.html


jack



Peter R. wrote:

You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they 
have fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that it 
might be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter





--
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Matt Liotta
Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?


-Matt

Jason wrote:

List,

   Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:


1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.


2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).


3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
to download.


4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).


I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
know the actual values):


1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
1meg.


4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.


Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.


Jason




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
It depends on the depth of modulation used and other factors. In a 6 meg 
TV channel space I am guessing you could easily see 15 to 20 megabit 
aggregate throughput over a good coverage area. (Maybe 3 miles radius?)


NOTE: The above are generalized best guesses on my part as I have never 
even seen one of these radios yet. DOCSIS standards provide some basis 
for conjecture of possible speeds within TV channel space. Google DOCSIS 
and most notably ARRIS DOCSIS for more thorough basis to estimate speeds 
and coverage areas for wireless data transmission within TV channel spaces.

Scriv


RickG wrote:


What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies?
-RickG

On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard.
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.
Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

 Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum
 becoming unlicensed?
 Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before
 we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before
 we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?
 Thanks.

 Mario

 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 All,

 This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become
 unlicensed.
 As quoted from the press release;

   The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit
 license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz
 and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will
 enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed
 wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no
 connectivity to broadband Internet.

 Links below;
 http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Mike Pearson
I believe what you would be looking for is something like a 
NetEqualizer.  This device works to equalize all your traffic to make 
sure one user is not using up all the pipe.  It works by tracking active 
connections by IP address, if it finds a user hogging the bandwidth it 
puts a delay on their connection to slow it down until they are back 
under control.  The best thing about this device is the price they are 
inexpensive compared to the very high end devices.  


Mike Pearson




Matt Liotta wrote:
Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?


-Matt

Jason wrote:

List,

   Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:


1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.


2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).


3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
to download.


4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).


I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I 
don't know the actual values):


1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
1meg.


4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.


Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.


Jason






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Brad Belton
grin...read my mind.

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?

-Matt

Jason wrote:
 List,

Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
 management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
 Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:

 1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
 surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.

 2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
 to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).

 3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
 to download.

 4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
 restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).

 I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
 there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
 know the actual values):

 1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

 2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

 3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
 1meg.

 4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
 replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.

 Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
 especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.

 Jason



-- 
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
We haven't used them but they do have an impressive client list, here's the
link
http://netequalizer.com/indexgoo.php

Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management


List,

Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:

1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.

2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to 
a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).

3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to 
download.

4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored 
in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).

I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
know the actual values):

1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg.

4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.

Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am especially 
interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.

Jason


-- 
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared 
for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are 
underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was 
there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was 
spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the 
info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your 
crystal ball.  :-)  

Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are 
writing these days?

Thanks,
Scriv


Steve Stroh wrote:



John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/



Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
lipped about it though.

Scriv



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
I can agree that over-sight is in order. I think the General Accounting 
Office actually did this. Didn't the report get sent out here a while 
back? I know Tom De Reggi and some of the rest of the WISPA board were 
involved in helping fine tune this report. What became of that one guys?

Thanks,
Scriv


Jory Privett wrote:

I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared.  I 
think he is against that as much as anyone.   BUT  what needs to 
happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is 
collected.  The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could 
have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that broadband is 
available for the entire area.  This is the kind of thing that needs 
to be checked and verified.


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetitionin the US



The government cannot request data with a note saying it is 
confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not 
going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit 
against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea 
that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared 
because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this 
information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because 
confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered.


If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in 
saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it 
because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the 
land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was 
wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still 
not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like 
it or not.

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

That actually may be the head of the nail.  Maybe not everyone 
DID fill it out honorably -- and hence the data is seriously 
flawed... Data that the FCC uses regularly to deregulate. Data that 
the FCC and the gov't uses regularly to grant so much to the ILECs.


Someone needs to verify the raw data.

- Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

I disagree with that. Confidentiality was promised to the form 
fillers. If that confidentiality is breached, ISPs would never 
honestly fill them out again, after being betrayed. The FCC is 
holding firm, as they know, its the only way to keep getting 
accurate data, and standing behind its word is protects the 
integrity of the FCC.


I do not believe that the FCC GOA has any benefit to fudge their 
findings.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of 
broadbandcompetition in the US



You know that if they don't want to give up the raw data that they 
have fudged the heck out of it!
It has been suggested by many folks, including Peter Huber, that 
it might be time to put the FCC out to pasture.


- Peter





--
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Mike Ireton
I'm with you jason - the subject of bandwidth management is an important 
one, and the fact is that new applications (crapplications?!) are 
appearing all the time which are pushing the business model into a tight 
spot. We have competing forces - on the one hand, we purchase expensive 
dedicated bandwidth, and on the other, we sell low cost shared 
bandwidth. We cannot sell for $34.95 what we pay $300 for. But yet we 
get customers who come to us and ask us to do exactly that.


The days of the unmanaged bandwidth network are numbered, if they are 
not already at an end. There's certainly some solutions available for 
head-end bandwidth management - like the bandwidth arbitrator which was 
already mentioned - but the most effective management starts with 
subscriber side and _not allowing_ traffic flows that exceed that 
subscribers limits, into the network in the first place. The Arbitrator 
can only deal with it once it reaches your noc (or wherever else you've 
placed it), but this doesn't do anything for portscanning viruses or 
other traffic which would get dropped - but also would have also 
consumed your precious network resouces first before getting to that 
choke point.


I'd really like to see an isp industry standardization effort on the 
subject of bandwidth subscription policies, something that we can 
present to customers as the uniform definition of what we provide in 
terms of bandwidth and allocation and priority and so forth that could 
then be used as a 'sticker' when shopping around for services


Mike (the rambler)



Jason wrote:

List,

   Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management 
has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For...  
Here's what I'd like to do:


1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.


2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to 
a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).


3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to 
download.


4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored 
in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).


I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
know the actual values):


1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg.

4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.


Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am especially 
interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.


Jason




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US

2007-01-24 Thread wispa
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:36:49 -0600, John Scrivner wrote
 The government cannot request data with a note saying it is 
 confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not 
 going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit 
 against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea 
 that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared 
 because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this 
 information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because 
 confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered.
 
 If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in 
 saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it 
 because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the 
 land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was 
 wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still 
 not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like 
 it or not. Scriv
 

You invoked my name, but let me clear something up...   

If the FCC loses in court, exactly who is to blame?  The FCC?  Hardly.  The 
court system?   Maybe.  Who?  I dunno. 

I was opposed on the grounds that the government shouldn't know this in the 
first place, not that it will get spread around.   My reasoning was that 
there's really no Constitutional justification for demanding the 
information.  That someone will come along later and get to that 
information when it was promised to be confidential... well... even WISPA 
could find itself in that position if it collected it.   I don't know why 
or how WISPA could get sued, but I don't think any of us foresaw the FCC 
getting sued until it happened, did we?  And if WISPA got sued, what deep 
pockets would exist to pay the lawyers to fight it? 

That the case isn't summarily dismissed is a bad sign... Not that the FCC 
will lose, I don't know, but that the mere accusation of fudging numbers 
about how many people can get broadband is JUSTIFICATION FOR REVEALING 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 

Do you get how flimsy that appears?  Any old political goal or wish is 
justification for demanding data and it really IS at risk, since summary 
judgement hasn't occurred, the court is seriously considering the idea 
valid. 

Plaintiff: We think your policies might not be perfect, so we can sue, get 
the data you collect under promise of confidentiality, and spread it around 
the internet to use in a campaign to get you to change policies or have you 
as an agency absolished, or at least your people replaced. 

Court:  Absolutely, your goals definitely trump any objections from 
businesses about confidentiality. 

Seems hard to imagine, but right now, that is precisely what's going on. 

Here's what I see happening as a solution to this:  The FCC asks Congress 
to pass a law demanding we file... AND codifying confidentiality into law.   
Congress does this, and at the same time requires you to now obtain federal 
licensing to be an ISP and that licensing will not be granted until you 
provide proof of CALEA compliance and a host of other important things 
they suddenly get lobbied to include...  All in the name of protecting the 
consumer of course... competence, adequacy, universal coverage, non- 
discrimination in who you serve, blah, blah, blah. 

And 95% of us close our doors and go to work for McDonald's to pay off our 
debts. 

I said long ago that opening the door and walking into the realm 
of federally regulated services  is a guillotine for small businesses. 

There is no future for small business in federally regulated services.   
Never has been. 

We should have been fighting this from day one, not walking in like a wide 
eyed lamb. 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US

2007-01-24 Thread wispa
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:52:37 -0600, Jory Privett wrote
 I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared. 
  I think he is against that as much as anyone.   BUT  what needs to 
 happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is 
 collected.  The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC 
 could have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that 
 broadband is available for the entire area.  This is the kind of 
 thing that needs to be checked and verified.
 
 Jory Privett
 WCCS
 

Why?  What is so sacred about broadband that the federal government has to 
come in like a bull in a china shop and start just banging around willy- 
nilly?   

Think about this:  We use this single dsl line in a zip code argument, 
and then what one of us would lease a tower site, put up equipment and 
backhauls, install ONE customer and then refuse to serve anyone else there, 
and do this in every town for 100 miles in every direction? 

What kind of crazy nonsense is that? 

The only time that makes sense, is when it pays to do it, that's why.   So 
why and how would someone profit from doing it.  Answer that question, and 
you'll answer why there are broadband problems in the US (if there really 
is any) and it won't require a single confidentiality breach, or anything 
else. 

Remember, this argument is about the SUCCESS of a set of policies, and that 
people want to change them.  Frankly, I think the spread of broadband 
coverage is going to go about the same speed no matter if the governemnt gets 
deeply involved or not.   About the best it can do proactively is nothing.  
The best it can do at all, is GET OUT OF THE WAY.  

If that means letting some spectrum loose, that would help.  If it meant 
telling the federal land managers (USFS, BLM, etd) to stop demanding a half 
million dollar EIS to build a tower for a WIFI backhaul, and other such 
nonsense, that's getting out of the way, too. 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Butch Evans

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote:

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for 
any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as 
opposed to deciding for the customer?


When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not 
everyone has this luxury.  Many on this list are selling residential 
service at lowball rates.  Also, most of them are paying premium 
prices for bandwidth.  You can't build a business model around 
unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow 
every even 128k without restrictions.


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Rich Comroe
This thread should not hit a nerve, as I think it has.  I've read a lot of your 
stuff, so I know you're a bright guy.  You know that while telephone talk-time 
may not be metered for many phone services that if everyone picked up their 
phone that the chances of getting a trunk out of your local office would drop 
to zero.  That's just science, not marketing.

No matter how your terms of service are sold there's a real engineering metric 
called erlangs per user, and it's expected value is much-much less than 1.  
This is traffic engineering, not marketing.  It's the real science behind what 
most wisps describe as oversubscription.  The lower the average erlangs per 
user the more users a given bandwidth serves.  There are actually textbooks and 
mature classes on the subject going back 40 years (the science was matured long 
ago by telephone engineering from the Bell System).

It's a legitimate concern what to do about users that statistically use x10 
fold, x100 fold, or even x1000 fold or more over the average.  Unless you're a 
service provider with a statistically HUGE number of users you cannot afford to 
let the averages take care of themselves as phone carriers do.  Even so, with 
the typically small number of users per access point, a statistically anomalous 
user can destroy service to other customers unlucky to share the same channel 
... it's something that simply MUST be addressed.

What the writer described, I call the leaky bucket algorithm, and there are 
some wisp manufacturers that actually code this into their radio products (no 
need to perform it via a head-end traffic shaper).  If your deployed radios do 
not, a head-end traffic shaper can do the same thing.

It's referred to as the leaky bucket algorithm because it's has a physical 
similarity.  Imagine a bucket of a given size that has a leak ... through which 
the user draws water.  In an instant, the user cannot draw more water than the 
bucket currently holds (referred to as burst size).  Once the bucket, or burst 
size, has been drawn, the user cannot draw more than the bucket's refill rate 
(referred to as sustained rate).  Radios with this built-in typically specify a 
burst size and sustained rate per CPE, for inbound, and for outbound (4 
parameters in total).  I'm familiar with many wisps that set the burst sizes to 
10M (don't know any that set it to 1G as the author hypothesized), and set 
sustained rates at 256kbps or 384kbps.  The interesting thing about the 
algorithm is that burst size is dimensionless (it's only a size, and not a rate 
... the rate is determined by the radio channel and traffic levels), while the 
sustained rate is a true rate (bits/sec).

I appologize for the lecture, but traffic engineering has always been a topic 
of interest to me going way back.  But I have great concerns for the viability 
of wisps that don't appreciate the issue (unless they only sell business 
service where throughput per user is sold with SLAs ... engineering to a high 
erlang per user, or equivalently described as a low oversubscription rate).

regards,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Matt Liotta 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management


  Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
  and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
  deciding for the customer?

  -Matt

  Jason wrote:
   List,
  
  Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
   management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
   Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:
  
   1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
   surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.
  
   2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
   to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).
  
   3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
   to download.
  
   4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
   restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).
  
   I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
   there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
   know the actual values):
  
   1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.
  
   2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.
  
   3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
   1meg.
  
   4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
   replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.
  
   Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
   especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.
  
   Jason
  
  

  -- 
  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: 

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Patrick Leary
Flarion's (QCOM) IP was to be the basis for 802.20, not 802.22. The
effort by 802.22 has ALWAYS been rural-focused, and thus the sub 1 GHz
bands, specifically the white spaces/TV bands.

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 John Scrivner
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared 
for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are 
underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was 
there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was 
spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the

info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your 
crystal ball.  :-)  

Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are 
writing these days?
Thanks,
Scriv


Steve Stroh wrote:


 John:

 There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/


 Thanks,

 Steve


 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

 The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
 created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
 about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
 anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
 unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
 equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
 unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
 lipped about it though.
 Scriv


 ---

 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





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] DNS Timeout supposedly

2007-01-24 Thread Carl A jeptha

Sorry for the cross-post
I am getting this report from dns reports.com:
quote
A timeout occurred getting the NS records from your nameservers! None of 
your nameservers responded fast enough. They are probably down or 
unreachable. I can't continue since your nameservers aren't responding. 
If you have a Watchguard Firebox, it's due to a bug in their DNS Proxy, 
which must be disabled (31 Jul 2006 UPDATE: several years after being 
informed of this, there is a rumor that there is a fix that allows the 
Watchguard DNS proxy to work).

unquote

So with that result it appears you wouldn't be able to reach our 
mailserver, but as can be seen these lists do.

The dns servers and other servers run thru our Mikrotik Gateway like this:
incoming on ether-b
sent over to ether-d
where our servers are.
ether-a is the internet gateway for our wireless clients and ether-c 
goes out to our wireless network.


Now when I use dnscheck, I don't have the same problem. Reason for all 
this is that we seem to having problems with our mailserver's anti-spam.


I think we are running into alot of broken, ill-configured mailservers 
of which ours was one.


How to fix, we run a Merak server that uses Spamassassin and avast.

--
You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Mac Dearman
Matt,

  What an asinine comment! You sound like you ought to be giving bandwidth
away with the pride and carefree attitude that you portrayed with such
indignant comment.  If the truth was known you aren't any different than
anyone else on this list - - the sub gets what they pay for. You can talk
trash all you want, but the truth is you need to dig your head out of your
ass and quit acting like - - well - - - - enough said.


Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?

-Matt

Jason wrote:
 List,

Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
 management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
 Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:

 1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
 surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.

 2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
 to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).

 3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
 to download.

 4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
 restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).

 I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
 there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
 know the actual values):

 1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

 2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

 3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
 1meg.

 4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
 replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.

 Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
 especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.

 Jason



-- 
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Patrick Leary
Rich, 

--- Here is the detail from the manual. I have first cut  pasted the graceful 
degradation math detail:

Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only)
Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over
demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR
(IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as
k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the simple
brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should be raised
in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected demand in a 
cell,
the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. Higher demand can be
expected in cases of significant over subscription and/or in deployments where a
high number of subscribers are in locations without proper communication with
the AU at the highest data rate.
The available values range from 0 to 70 (%).

--- And here is the whole bit about how the mechanism works

4.2.6.6.2 MIR and CIR Parameters
The CIR (Committed Information Rate) specifies the minimum data rate guaranteed 
to the relevant subscriber. The MIR (Maximum Information Rate) value specifies 
the maximum data rate available for burst transmissions, provided such 
bandwidth is available. Under normal conditions, the actual Information Rate 
(IR) is between the applicable CIR and MIR values, based on the following 
formula: IR=CIR+K(MIR - CIR).

In this formula K is between 0 and 1 and is determined dynamically by the AU 
according to overall demand in the cell and the prevailing conditions that 
influence the performance of the wireless link. In some situations the minimum 
rate (CIR) cannot be provided. This may result from high demand and poor 
wireless link conditions and/or high demand in over-subscribed cells. 

When this occurs, the actual information rate is lower than the CIR.
The simple solution for managing the information rate in such cases can result 
in an unfair allocation of resources, as subscribers with a higher CIR actually 
receive an IR lower than the CIR designated for subscribers in a lower CIR 
bracket.

A special algorithm for graceful degradation is incorporated into the AU, 
ensuring that the degradation of performance for each individual Subscriber 
Unit is proportional to its CIR. The MIR/CIR algorithm uses buffers to control 
the flow of data. To balance the performance over time, a special Burst 
Duration algorithm is employed to enable higher transmission rates after a 
period of inactivity. If no data is received from the Ethernet port during the 
last N seconds, the unit is allowed to transmit N times its CIR value without 
any delay. For example, after a period of inactivity of 0.5 seconds, a unit 
with CIR = 128 Kbps can transmit up to 128 Kbits x 0.5 = 64 Kbits without any 
delay.

4.2.6.6.2.1 MIR: Downlink (SU only)
Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The 
MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown inTable 4-12. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

4.2.6.6.2.2 MIR: Uplink (SU only)
Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the up-link from the SU to the AU. The MIR 
value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values range 
and default value are shown in Table 4-12. The actual value will be the entered 
value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

4.2.6.6.2.3 CIR: Downlink (SU only)
Sets the Committed Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The 
CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown inTable 4-13. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

4.2.6.6.2.4 CIR: Uplink (SU only)
Sets the Committed Information Rate of the uplink from the SU to the AU. The
CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown in Table 4-13. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

Table 4-12: MIR Ranges and Defaults
MIR Uplink MIR Downlink
Unit
Type
 Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps)
SU-3 128-2,048 2,048 128-3,072 3,072
SU-6 128-4,096 4,096 128-6,016 6,016
SU-54 128-53,888 32,896 128-53,888 32,896

Table 4-13: CIR Ranges and Defaults
CIR Uplink and Downlink
Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps)
SU-3 0-2,048 0
SU-6 0-4,096 0
SU-54 0-45,056 0

4.2.6.6.2.5 Maximum Burst Duration (SU and AU)
Sets the maximum time for accumulating burst transmission rights according to 
the Burst Duration algorithm. Available values range from 0 to 2000 
milliseconds). The default value is 5 (milliseconds), enabling a maximum burst 
of (0.005 X CIR) Kbps after a period of inactivity of 5 milliseconds or more.

4.2.6.6.2.6 Maximum Delay (SU only)
Sets the maximum permitted delay in the 

RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Patrick Leary
Matt (Liota) and the rest of us need to remember that Matt sells only
dedicated ptp links. He does not deploy a PMP, so his inputs and answers
generally do not reflect a pmp environment or its many orders higher
complexity. That's not a dig Matt, it is just reality. Ptp is a far
different world and much easier.

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 Mac Dearman
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

Matt,

  What an asinine comment! You sound like you ought to be giving
bandwidth
away with the pride and carefree attitude that you portrayed with such
indignant comment.  If the truth was known you aren't any different than
anyone else on this list - - the sub gets what they pay for. You can
talk
trash all you want, but the truth is you need to dig your head out of
your
ass and quit acting like - - well - - - - enough said.


Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?

-Matt

Jason wrote:
 List,

Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
 management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
 Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:

 1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
 surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.

 2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
 to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3
minutes).

 3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
 to download.

 4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
 restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).

 I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
 there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't

 know the actual values):

 1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.

 2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.

 3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
 1meg.

 4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
 replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.

 Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
 especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.

 Jason



-- 
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/





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/


RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Mac Dearman
My hat is off to you John!

You possess skills that I don't in saying things that I should have said in
a different fashion :-) 

 I am not now - nor have I ever been in a class that is politically
correct and unless something serious happens - - - - - never will be :-)



Mac



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of J. Vogel
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world,
not necessarily in the limited
world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
pay for such a pipe. In many
areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
Customers do not want to pay
close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet,
yet the customer would like to
access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
whenever they can. In such a case
it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to
sell customers shared bandwidth.

In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
question, and deserves an answer
other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
should not be. The world is a big
place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen
lately.

John

Matt Liotta wrote:

 Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any
 and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to
 deciding for the customer?

 -Matt



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Travis Johnson

Butch,

That's not correct. About 5 years ago, we were paying $1,500 per T1 and 
selling T1 speed wireless for $250 per month. Seven to eight years ago 
we were paying $3,000 per T1 and selling wireless T1 for $250 per month. 
This is the entire ISP business model.


Travis
Microserv

Butch Evans wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote:

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
deciding for the customer?


When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not 
everyone has this luxury.  Many on this list are selling residential 
service at lowball rates.  Also, most of them are paying premium 
prices for bandwidth.  You can't build a business model around 
unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow 
every even 128k without restrictions.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Travis Johnson
OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up 
to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling 
what they get.


We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down, 
guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever 
did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy 
more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.


Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

Travis
Microserv

Blair Davis wrote:

We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.

We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My 
pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.


A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the 
256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a 
1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not 
possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the 
customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told 
him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this 
Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some 
words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..


After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and 
a 3 month lead time, he called me back...


He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri) 
and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a 
damn good deal..


The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth 
expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large 
cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.


The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business 
customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage 
patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still 
providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer


Just my $.02


J. Vogel wrote:


I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world,
not necessarily in the limited
world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
pay for such a pipe. In many
areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
Customers do not want to pay
close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet,
yet the customer would like to
access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
whenever they can. In such a case
it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to
sell customers shared bandwidth.

In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
question, and deserves an answer
other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
should not be. The world is a big
place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen
lately.

John

Matt Liotta wrote:
 


Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to
deciding for the customer?

-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] SmartPhone Happiness...

2007-01-24 Thread Chad Halsted

have you tried mobile ssh?

On 1/24/07, paul hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm running putty on my E70. Is great to be on a roof with mobile in one
hand whilst you pan your StarOS or Mikrotik cpe ;) Only down side seems
to be the lack of a tab key.

-Original Message-
From: Chad Halsted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 January 2007 19:32
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...

Matt,

Have you had a chance to play with SSH utilities.  I'm looking for the
same phone and have heard others using it to SSH into their Star-OS
boxes with good success.

Mobile SSH has a free trial and should work with the E70.



On 1/22/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It was finally time to replace my Nokia 6800 with 600 hours and a
broken
 screen from being dropped too many times, so I decided to get a Nokia
 E70 phone.

 It has been a little bit of a challenge, but it is pretty close to
cell
 phone nirvana.  It has been able to do I have wanted to accomplish
with
 a PDA or cell phone combined.

 The first main issue was getting the phone contacts/calendar/notes
 synchronized with my PC.  My previous phone was extremely flaky when
 used with the Nokia PC Suite software, and only connected about one in
 every 10 times.   I had to install, reinstall, run a registry cleaner
 and then reinstall the software but I was finally able to get a
reliable
 connection between my PC and phone.  Once accomplished, I was able to
 get all of my items synced up in a repeatable, reliable fashion.
With
 all their available resources, I am amazed that Nokia was not able to
 this process worked out better.

 The second item was seeing how Internet access worked on the phone.
 GPRS seems to work fine, but I was more interested in the wifi
 connectivity feature of the phone.  The E70 will browse for an
available
 access point and the process for connecting is pretty straightforward.
 I have to pass on huge props for the Internet browser on the E70.  I
 would prefer using the smaller screen E70 browser than the browser on
 all of the PocketPCs that I have used.  It is that good.  It was
 reliable, viewable, easy to navigate and there have been no weird
format
 surprises.   All told - the Internet access components work very well.
 I have not gotten the instant messaging to work yet, but it looks like
 other have, so I will still have that to work on.

 The last and most interesting piece was the struggle to get VOIP
working
 on a cell phone.  My cell coverage at my house and many other places
in
 my service area is very spotty, so I have been looking forward to
having
 a phone that could roam to wifi and keep my roaming minutes down to a
 minimum.  I was able to find a couple of links to guides on how to set
 the phone up with an asterisk voip server and was finally able to get
it
 to connect to my office voip phone system.  After all the hassles and
 reported problems on user forums, I was very pleasantly surprised by
the
 performance of the voip part of the E70.  It is actually clearer than
 regular cell calls, with just a little bit of breakup when the wifi
 signal gets low.  Best of all, my outgoing calls all go through my
 office system when I am in range of a wifi access point, meaning less
 minutes on my cell phone plan.  I should also be able to use the voip
 when I go to remote tower sites that used to not work at all on the
 regular cell network or incurred roaming charges.

 All in all, I am very impressed with the E70.  I am going to
officially
 retire my iPaqs to other tasks and use this as my primary
PIM/phone/voip
 phone.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com

 PS - I purchased my E70 from Tiger Direct for about $435, but they are
 also available at voip-supply.com for $385.



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Chad Halsted
The Computer Works
Conway, AR
www.tcworks.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/




--
Chad Halsted
The Computer Works
Conway, AR
www.tcworks.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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Butch Evans

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Travis Johnson wrote:

That's not correct. About 5 years ago, we were paying $1,500 per T1 
and selling T1 speed wireless for $250 per month. Seven to eight 
years ago we were paying $3,000 per T1 and selling wireless T1 for 
$250 per month. This is the entire ISP business model.


And you allow a single customer to pay you $250/month for what you 
pay $1500/month?  And you make money how?  What I read in Matt's 
post (below) is that if they pay for the 1.5Mbit, they should get 
it...anytime, all the time.  As in dedicated.  Perhaps I mistook his 
intention, but from reading others responses, I'd guess I didn't.


FWIW, I have been in this business long enough to understand how it 
works.  I am not saying that you can't purchase a T1 and sell a T1 
speed to more than one person and get away with it.  But keep in 
mind, that selling internet access to businesses 7-8 years ago is 
not even the same as it is today.  Back then, businesses did not use 
NEAR the average bandwidth they use today.  Even so, they use much 
less average BW than do residential subs (in most cases).  SO, if 
your cost/meg goes down, your utilization is going up.  Your bottom 
line will show you that what I am saying is true (and I know you 
understand this anyway).



On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote:

Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and 
all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding 
for the customer?





--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Thanks much.  I love it when you talk technical!  Sorry, couldn't help it...

No really, the devil is always in the details in these things.  This is just 
the detail I was looking for.  After I digest I hope I may send questions your 
way off-list.  Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw 
management algorithms they may have built-in.

thanks again,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:23 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management


  Rich, 

  --- Here is the detail from the manual. I have first cut  pasted the 
graceful degradation math detail:

  Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only)
  Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over
  demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR
  (IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as
  k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the simple
  brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should be 
raised
  in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected demand in a 
cell,
  the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. Higher demand can be
  expected in cases of significant over subscription and/or in deployments 
where a
  high number of subscribers are in locations without proper communication with
  the AU at the highest data rate.
  The available values range from 0 to 70 (%).

  --- And here is the whole bit about how the mechanism works

  4.2.6.6.2 MIR and CIR Parameters
  The CIR (Committed Information Rate) specifies the minimum data rate 
guaranteed to the relevant subscriber. The MIR (Maximum Information Rate) value 
specifies the maximum data rate available for burst transmissions, provided 
such bandwidth is available. Under normal conditions, the actual Information 
Rate (IR) is between the applicable CIR and MIR values, based on the following 
formula: IR=CIR+K(MIR - CIR).

  In this formula K is between 0 and 1 and is determined dynamically by the AU 
according to overall demand in the cell and the prevailing conditions that 
influence the performance of the wireless link. In some situations the minimum 
rate (CIR) cannot be provided. This may result from high demand and poor 
wireless link conditions and/or high demand in over-subscribed cells. 

  When this occurs, the actual information rate is lower than the CIR.
  The simple solution for managing the information rate in such cases can 
result in an unfair allocation of resources, as subscribers with a higher CIR 
actually receive an IR lower than the CIR designated for subscribers in a lower 
CIR bracket.

  A special algorithm for graceful degradation is incorporated into the AU, 
ensuring that the degradation of performance for each individual Subscriber 
Unit is proportional to its CIR. The MIR/CIR algorithm uses buffers to control 
the flow of data. To balance the performance over time, a special Burst 
Duration algorithm is employed to enable higher transmission rates after a 
period of inactivity. If no data is received from the Ethernet port during the 
last N seconds, the unit is allowed to transmit N times its CIR value without 
any delay. For example, after a period of inactivity of 0.5 seconds, a unit 
with CIR = 128 Kbps can transmit up to 128 Kbits x 0.5 = 64 Kbits without any 
delay.

  4.2.6.6.2.1 MIR: Downlink (SU only)
  Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. The 
MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown inTable 4-12. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

  4.2.6.6.2.2 MIR: Uplink (SU only)
  Sets the Maximum Information Rate of the up-link from the SU to the AU. The 
MIR value cannot be lower than the corresponding CIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown in Table 4-12. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

  4.2.6.6.2.3 CIR: Downlink (SU only)
  Sets the Committed Information Rate of the downlink from the AU to the SU. 
The CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available 
values range and default value are shown inTable 4-13. The actual value will be 
the entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

  4.2.6.6.2.4 CIR: Uplink (SU only)
  Sets the Committed Information Rate of the uplink from the SU to the AU. The
  CIR value cannot be higher than the corresponding MIR value. Available values 
range and default value are shown in Table 4-13. The actual value will be the 
entered value rounded to the nearest multiple of 128 (N*128).

  Table 4-12: MIR Ranges and Defaults
  MIR Uplink MIR Downlink
  Unit
  Type
   Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps)
  SU-3 128-2,048 2,048 128-3,072 3,072
  SU-6 128-4,096 4,096 

[WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread RickG

Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...

I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
What if you played the cable game and just sell  all you can eat?
Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)

Thanks!
RickG

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up
to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling
what they get.

We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.

Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

Travis
Microserv

Blair Davis wrote:
 We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.

 We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
 pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.

 A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
 1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
 possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
 customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
 him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
 Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
 words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..

 After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
 a 3 month lead time, he called me back...

 He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
 and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
 damn good deal..

 The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
 expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
 cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.

 The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
 customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
 patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
 providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer

 Just my $.02


 J. Vogel wrote:

 I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world,
 not necessarily in the limited
 world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
 pay for such a pipe. In many
 areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
 Customers do not want to pay
 close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the internet,
 yet the customer would like to
 access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
 whenever they can. In such a case
 it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all unethical to
 sell customers shared bandwidth.

 In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
 question, and deserves an answer
 other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
 should not be. The world is a big
 place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have seen
 lately.

 John

 Matt Liotta wrote:


 Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any
 and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to
 deciding for the customer?

 -Matt








--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Jason Wallace

That is exactly the issue I have.  The system I need this for is an
extremely rural retirement community, satellite-connected WISP
with 1meg down 128k up and 266megs total per day limit (8gig
spread over 30 days).  Just one all night P2P session will cause
the upstream provider to cut the connection to 56k up/down for
weeks until the total usage drops to 6gig in the previous 30 days.
Then nobody's happy.  Meanwhile, babyboomers are retiring
and moving from the city where they got 4 to 6 meg Roadrunner
and Cox connections and expect the same service at the same
pricepoint.  T1's run up to 2200$/month. Needless to say, I am
also looking for other bandwidth sources...  Even with a GOOD
Internet pipe, I'll need software to make sure everyone plays fair,
especially at the dawn of IPTV.
Jason




On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Matt Liotta wrote:


Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for
any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as
opposed to deciding for the customer?


When your head dips below the cloud cover, you will realize that not
everyone has this luxury.  Many on this list are selling residential
service at lowball rates.  Also, most of them are paying premium
prices for bandwidth.  You can't build a business model around
unlimited access for $30/month and pay for an $800+ T1, if you allow
every even 128k without restrictions.

--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
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] BelAir Networks VAR Program

2007-01-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Talk to David Wilson about this.  He used to work for them.

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:49 AM
Subject: [WISPA] BelAir Networks VAR Program



Anybody using BelAir?
They have made some stabs at doing Muni RFP's but had some capital issues.

http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/71h17132810.html

BelAir Networks, a mobile broadband multiservice wireless mesh network 
provider, today announced an expanded VAR channel program.


BelAir Networks’ VAR program offers sales, technical and marketing support 
customized to each partner’s goals. The program includes three tiers with 
increasing levels of incentives; technical and sales certification through 
BelAir University Webinars; market development funds, rewards and rebates; 
and a partner advisory council.


“We have enhanced and expanded our program in response to strong interest 
from VARs who want to take advantage of the opportunities offered now in 
the wireless mesh space. In addition to industry-leading incentives, the 
program offers many benefits including market development support and 
comprehensive technical training – all designed to give our partners a 
quick ramp-up in this fast-paced market,” stated Jim Freeze, senior vice 
president of marketing and alliances at BelAir Networks.


BelAir Networks and its partners have made more than 200 deployments of 
wireless mesh networks in cities such as Minneapolis, London and Toronto, 
as well as high-profile venues such as Dolphin Stadium in Miami.


BelAir Networks www.belairnetworks.com http://www.belairnetworks.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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now.  Independently and 
with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and I've recently had talks 
with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards group) folks.


As always, we need more bodies to go a better job.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we 
see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can 
use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 
698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Brad Belton
Holy cow!  Stepped away from the 'puter for a bit and see that everyone's
beating up on poor 'ol Matt for making a perfectly correct statement!

No surprise as to some of the people commenting here that largely promote
best effort gear, but others that have commented should know better.

Rick, you're on the right track.  Keep it up.  We have been selling
bandwidth packages since day one.  If we had not been we wouldn't have seen
the organic increase to our bottom line over the past few years as customers
upgrade bandwidth packages.

The ones complaining about VoIP quality issues are largely the ones that
have an open spigot for all their users.  The VoIP revolution has been
great because many times it requires the client to come back to us for MORE
bandwidth.  When you sell bandwidth packages that gives you an opportunity
to put more dollars in the register.  This opportunity can lead to other
sales like client network upgrades, extending the service agreement...the
list goes on and on.

Matt's comment:
Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and
all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding
for the customer?

I see no problem with this comment.  Why should it matter to the provider if
the bits of data are VoIP, FTP, HTTP, or Xbox?   It's all ones and zeros.
Build your network to handle it at the levels you are committing to your
clients.  As they require more they PAY for more!  What a concept!

Bottom line is don't join the great race to zero with the likes of cable
and DSL.  Nobody wants to be there fighting it out on price alone against
the big guys.  Believe me they have more money than you.  Instead sell a
better service at a fair price.  Your clients will thank you and your wallet
will too.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was:
Advanced Bandwidth Management

Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...

I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
What if you played the cable game and just sell  all you can eat?
Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)

Thanks!
RickG

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up
 to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling
 what they get.

 We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
 guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
 did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
 more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.

 Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Blair Davis wrote:
  We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.
 
  We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
  pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.
 
  A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
  256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
  1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
  possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
  customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
  him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
  Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
  words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..
 
  After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
  a 3 month lead time, he called me back...
 
  He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
  and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
  damn good deal..
 
  The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
  expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
  cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.
 
  The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
  customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
  patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
  providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer
 
  Just my $.02
 
 
  J. Vogel wrote:
 
  I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the world,
  not necessarily in the limited
  world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
  pay for such a pipe. In many
  areas of the US, especially rural, 

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Travis Johnson
No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast 
this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it...
The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then 
get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can 
download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time? 
Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :(


Travis
Microserv

RickG wrote:

Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...

I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
What if you played the cable game and just sell  all you can eat?
Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)

Thanks!
RickG

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up
to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling
what they get.

We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.

Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

Travis
Microserv

Blair Davis wrote:
 We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.

 We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
 pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.

 A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
 1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
 possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
 customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
 him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
 Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
 words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..

 After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
 a 3 month lead time, he called me back...

 He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
 and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
 damn good deal..

 The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
 expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
 cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.

 The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
 customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
 patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
 providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer

 Just my $.02


 J. Vogel wrote:

 I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the 
world,

 not necessarily in the limited
 world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
 pay for such a pipe. In many
 areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
 Customers do not want to pay
 close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the 
internet,

 yet the customer would like to
 access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
 whenever they can. In such a case
 it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all 
unethical to

 sell customers shared bandwidth.

 In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
 question, and deserves an answer
 other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
 should not be. The world is a big
 place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have 
seen

 lately.

 John

 Matt Liotta wrote:


 Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for 
any
 and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as 
opposed to

 deciding for the customer?

 -Matt








--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread RickG

Ya, thats my gut feeling and why I havent done it. Thanks!

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast
this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it...
The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then
get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can
download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time?
Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :(

Travis
Microserv

RickG wrote:
 Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...

 I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
 speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
 What if you played the cable game and just sell  all you can eat?
 Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
 Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
 your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
 up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)

 Thanks!
 RickG

 On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with their up
 to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start selling
 what they get.

 We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
 guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
 did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
 more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.

 Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Blair Davis wrote:
  We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.
 
  We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
  pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.
 
  A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
  256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
  1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
  possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
  customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
  him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
  Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
  words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..
 
  After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
  a 3 month lead time, he called me back...
 
  He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
  and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
  damn good deal..
 
  The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
  expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
  cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.
 
  The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
  customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
  patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
  providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer
 
  Just my $.02
 
 
  J. Vogel wrote:
 
  I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the
 world,
  not necessarily in the limited
  world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
  pay for such a pipe. In many
  areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
  Customers do not want to pay
  close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the
 internet,
  yet the customer would like to
  access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
  whenever they can. In such a case
  it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all
 unethical to
  sell customers shared bandwidth.
 
  In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
  question, and deserves an answer
  other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
  should not be. The world is a big
  place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have
 seen
  lately.
 
  John
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
 
  Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for
 any
  and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as
 opposed to
  deciding for the customer?
 
  -Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Mikrotik 1 to 1 NAT question

2007-01-24 Thread Don Annas
I have an office router/Mikrotik that has a wan IP that is set up as a
global nat to an inside private range.  Additionally, we have a /27 routed
to the Mikrotik and are doing 1 to 1 nat translations using dstnat for
certain servers.  Our problem is that while traffic can get to these devices
using the alternate IP on the /27, when the devices send outbound traffic,
it appears to be coming from the wan IP that is utilized for the global NAT
pool instead of the IP that we are trying to translate it too.  Any ideas?
Thank you.

 

Don Annas

Triad Telecom, Inc.

HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
I have a funny story to share which is along these lines. My son is in 
college now at U of I in a fraternity. (President of his Frat I might 
add!)  When he was in high school he would use our wireless connection 
at home to download using Bit Torrent and other P2P packages. At that 
time we had no shaping on the P2P traffic. I would get angry with him 
because I told him that was not allowed on our network due to all the 
traffic trouble it caused with the hundreds of connections it would open 
up. He always thought I was just being a jerk to him. I just got off the 
phone with him about 15 minutes ago. He was complaining about guys in 
their frat using up all the bandwidth with Bit Torrent and how the 
computer science major in the frat house has started policing the 
bandwidth use. He admitted to me that he felt like he understood me a 
little better now. It was sure fun tonight to hear him admitting that 
ol' Dad was maybe right after all!


Enjoy your time with your kids guys. Every minute of it. I sure miss him 
around here.

Scriv


RickG wrote:


Ya, thats my gut feeling and why I havent done it. Thanks!

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast
this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at 
it...

The model of the customer will use what they are going to use and then
get off is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can
download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time?
Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :(

Travis
Microserv

RickG wrote:
 Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...

 I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
 speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
 What if you played the cable game and just sell  all you can eat?
 Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
 Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
 your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
 up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)

 Thanks!
 RickG

 On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco games with 
their up
 to 3meg and up to 7meg connections for $34.95 and just start 
selling

 what they get.

 We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and 
down,
 guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we 
ever
 did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they 
buy

 more. No games, no burstable speeds, etc.

 Make your customers pay for what they need and use.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Blair Davis wrote:
  We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.
 
  We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
  pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.
 
  A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained 
that the
  256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He 
demanded a

  1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
  possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending 
that the
  customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, 
told

  him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
  Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
  words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..
 
  After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 
install), and

  a 3 month lead time, he called me back...
 
  He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
  and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
  damn good deal..
 
  The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and 
bandwidth

  expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
  cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.
 
  The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and 
business
  customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their 
usage

  patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
  providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer
 
  Just my $.02
 
 
  J. Vogel wrote:
 
  I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the
 world,
  not necessarily in the limited
  world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case 
could not

  pay for such a pipe. In many
  areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely 
expensive.

  Customers do not want to pay
  close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the
 internet,
  yet the customer would like to
  access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
  whenever they can. In such a case
  it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all
 unethical to
  sell customers shared bandwidth.
 
  In cases such as these, 

Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Ryan Langseth


On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

Thanks much.  I love it when you talk technical!  Sorry, couldn't  
help it...


No really, the devil is always in the details in these things.   
This is just the detail I was looking for.  After I digest I hope I  
may send questions your way off-list.  Still hoping operators using  
other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have  
built-in.


If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic  
control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control  
manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into  
some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how  
to implement them.


http://lartc.org
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html


thanks again,
Rich



-Ryan

--
InvisiMax
Ryan Langseth
Systems Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work: (218) 745-6030






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/