Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, ChiefofOET
Marlon, I was just trying to determine if the problems you're experiencing were due to: a) Equipment Certification Issues - Use of equipment that had "dirty" transmitters. b) Overpower Issues - Running too much power. c) Uncoordinated Frequency Issues - Legal power and clean transmitters but transmitting on frequencies and/or using antenna polarizations that you or others were already using. Per the original thread topic, I was trying to determine if the interference was caused by the use of uncertified equipment or not. Sorry if I didn't ask my questions clearly. Depending on the cause of the problem, the solutions are somewhat different and the FCC reporting that you may want to do (or have done) would be focused somewhat differently. I know you'll be careful about not adding too many new customers while you are experiencing the problem of having your current customer's service interrupted by this "interference". If you get in a bind, I know a guy who is pretty good at helping to solve interference problems (nod, nod, wink, wink) who you could probably pay to come up and help you figure out what's going on and what you could do to minimize the impact of this interference on your system. Hit me offline if you want more info. jack P.S. - I agree that arrogant jerks like this usually do themselves in and eventually go away. The question is how much damage will he do before he self-destructs? Marlon K. Schafer wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, ChiefofOET Marlon, Thank you for your very interesting post. I would have to say that I agree with most of the sentiments that you've expressed. There is however ONE point that perhaps you would clarify. You said that you have operators in your area "running illegal networks... and the WHOLE market is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference". Is this interference due to: a) The "bad" operators are using uncertified equipment that is "dirty" - thats radiating high-power spurious emissions that are either too loud or too wide in frequency or both? Too many options :-). b) The baddes are exceeding the + 36 dBm EIRP limit? They either have a tower that is NOT on the hill and I just haven't found yet. Or, yeah, they are WAY over the eirp limit. I pick their system up at a higher signal level than my own even when pointed 30 to 40 * away from them. It's amazing. I've not taken the time to track this down yet as the calls have really just started to come in AND I've only recently learned that at least one of the other competitors systems up on the hill is getting killed in the evenings when we all hit peak hours. I think that what's happening is that their system is so loud that as soon as it gets busy at all our radios can't hear each other. The problem affects the close in customers but really seems to hit the long distance ones hard. I've been swamped with installs though. I keep hoping for a couple of days off so I can devote some time to this without the risk of missed opportunity. But I may just have to carve out a chunk of time anyway. c) Dirty buggers were/are ignorant of other in-service WISPs and are operating on frequencies that were already in use by the other WISPs, thereby causing interference to the other WISPs? They arent' ignorant. I've talked to the owner. He's the biggest, um, well you figure out a really bad word for him and mine's worse, I've run into in a very long time. He called ME up one time and chewed me out in a mannor that would have done my old drill instructor proud. For what? For explaining the part 15 rules to the owner of a tower that he rents. Seems that this guy causes nothing but trouble everywhere he goes. Eventually he'll run out of money or suckers to get more from. But until then, we keep re designing our sites near him to deal with his noise. We're now down to a 30* sectored solution that's running as hot as I can make it without going over the rules. I think we're about 35 or 36 dB. From my signal checks, he's either a few miles closer to the customers (hard to do when the tower is only 4 miles away already) or is cranking out somewhere in the 40 to 45 dB range. Or, I've got my facts all messed up and there's something else going on up on the hill that no one has figured out yet. I did turn this guy in to the FCC once already. The enforcement agent told me that he'd never been talked to like he was by this guy. What a jerk. The good news is that I've seen guys like this before. Eventually they all disapear. That help? marlon Thank you for any clarifications that you can add. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I remember clear back in 2001 or so. I was fortunate enough to have breakfast with Michael Marcus. P
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, ChiefofOET
- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, ChiefofOET Marlon, Thank you for your very interesting post. I would have to say that I agree with most of the sentiments that you've expressed. There is however ONE point that perhaps you would clarify. You said that you have operators in your area "running illegal networks... and the WHOLE market is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference". Is this interference due to: a) The "bad" operators are using uncertified equipment that is "dirty" - thats radiating high-power spurious emissions that are either too loud or too wide in frequency or both? Too many options :-). b) The baddes are exceeding the + 36 dBm EIRP limit? They either have a tower that is NOT on the hill and I just haven't found yet. Or, yeah, they are WAY over the eirp limit. I pick their system up at a higher signal level than my own even when pointed 30 to 40 * away from them. It's amazing. I've not taken the time to track this down yet as the calls have really just started to come in AND I've only recently learned that at least one of the other competitors systems up on the hill is getting killed in the evenings when we all hit peak hours. I think that what's happening is that their system is so loud that as soon as it gets busy at all our radios can't hear each other. The problem affects the close in customers but really seems to hit the long distance ones hard. I've been swamped with installs though. I keep hoping for a couple of days off so I can devote some time to this without the risk of missed opportunity. But I may just have to carve out a chunk of time anyway. c) Dirty buggers were/are ignorant of other in-service WISPs and are operating on frequencies that were already in use by the other WISPs, thereby causing interference to the other WISPs? They arent' ignorant. I've talked to the owner. He's the biggest, um, well you figure out a really bad word for him and mine's worse, I've run into in a very long time. He called ME up one time and chewed me out in a mannor that would have done my old drill instructor proud. For what? For explaining the part 15 rules to the owner of a tower that he rents. Seems that this guy causes nothing but trouble everywhere he goes. Eventually he'll run out of money or suckers to get more from. But until then, we keep re designing our sites near him to deal with his noise. We're now down to a 30* sectored solution that's running as hot as I can make it without going over the rules. I think we're about 35 or 36 dB. From my signal checks, he's either a few miles closer to the customers (hard to do when the tower is only 4 miles away already) or is cranking out somewhere in the 40 to 45 dB range. Or, I've got my facts all messed up and there's something else going on up on the hill that no one has figured out yet. I did turn this guy in to the FCC once already. The enforcement agent told me that he'd never been talked to like he was by this guy. What a jerk. The good news is that I've seen guys like this before. Eventually they all disapear. That help? marlon Thank you for any clarifications that you can add. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I remember clear back in 2001 or so. I was fortunate enough to have breakfast with Michael Marcus. Patrick, i think you were there for this. I remember him telling the story about FCC certified computers. Back in the day, it was only legal to sell a computer as a complete certified system. Then along came Michael Dell. He said, screw the rules, they are stupid. He started selling anyone any combination of certified components that they wanted. Soon, there were so many systems out there that were NOT causing interference issues that it was completely impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Out of that comes today's way to buy a computer. The COMPONENT gets certified, you mix and match them all you want. As I recall, Mike M. said that they (the FCC) knew that SOME combinations WOULD cause a problem. But that the likely hood of it being an issue was outweighed by the benefits of the new rules. We've already had one adjustment on the part 15 certification rules lately. And it was sorely needed. I remember calling the FCC and talking to John Reed. One of the guys that WROTE the FCC rules. Back in 1999 when I get started it as ILLEGAL for me to use an Andrew antenna on a BreezeCOM system. Even though Andrew made the antennas and all BreezeCOM did was put a different sticker on them. I remember more than one argument with Patrick (and others) about whether or not it was ok for me to use the $60 Andrew antennas vs. the $200 BreezeCOM ones. As it turned out, I was wrong, it wasn't OK. But the rule was also wrong and h
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chiefof OET
Marlon, Thank you for your very interesting post. I would have to say that I agree with most of the sentiments that you've expressed. There is however ONE point that perhaps you would clarify. You said that you have operators in your area "running illegal networks... and the WHOLE market is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference". Is this interference due to: a) The "bad" operators are using uncertified equipment that is "dirty" - thats radiating high-power spurious emissions that are either too loud or too wide in frequency or both? b) The baddes are exceeding the + 36 dBm EIRP limit? c) Dirty buggers were/are ignorant of other in-service WISPs and are operating on frequencies that were already in use by the other WISPs, thereby causing interference to the other WISPs? Thank you for any clarifications that you can add. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I remember clear back in 2001 or so. I was fortunate enough to have breakfast with Michael Marcus. Patrick, i think you were there for this. I remember him telling the story about FCC certified computers. Back in the day, it was only legal to sell a computer as a complete certified system. Then along came Michael Dell. He said, screw the rules, they are stupid. He started selling anyone any combination of certified components that they wanted. Soon, there were so many systems out there that were NOT causing interference issues that it was completely impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Out of that comes today's way to buy a computer. The COMPONENT gets certified, you mix and match them all you want. As I recall, Mike M. said that they (the FCC) knew that SOME combinations WOULD cause a problem. But that the likely hood of it being an issue was outweighed by the benefits of the new rules. We've already had one adjustment on the part 15 certification rules lately. And it was sorely needed. I remember calling the FCC and talking to John Reed. One of the guys that WROTE the FCC rules. Back in 1999 when I get started it as ILLEGAL for me to use an Andrew antenna on a BreezeCOM system. Even though Andrew made the antennas and all BreezeCOM did was put a different sticker on them. I remember more than one argument with Patrick (and others) about whether or not it was ok for me to use the $60 Andrew antennas vs. the $200 BreezeCOM ones. As it turned out, I was wrong, it wasn't OK. But the rule was also wrong and has since been changed. We'll eventually see more of the rules changed. Look at the unique connector rule. The FCC certifies EVERY new consumer device with an RPSMA connector on it. It's hardly a unique solution anymore. Yet anyone can get it certified. I do NOT recommend that anyone out there build a non certified system. Mine isn't perfect but it's very close and getting better all of the time. But what are we really supposed to do? There is NO government enforcement of the rules. What's the incentive to obey them? I have operators in my area running illegal networks and I've had very limited success in getting them fixed let along shut down. And the WHOLE market is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference. In a fight (like the fight for usable spectrum) the bad guy always makes the rules. If one guy goes to high power, all have to. No, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make a more usable network. It's not completely the WISP that looks bad when these discussions take place. It's also those in government that turn a totally blind eye. No matter what gets done in the field. I'll tell you something about the whitespaces too. The broadcasters do NOT want to see auctioned spectrum. They loose too much control that way. They'd be fools to push for that. The spectrum WILL be opened up for someone. Who's the least possible threat to them long term? Unlicensed. The WISPs are, by far, the best friend that the broadcasters have in this fight. We want smart radios, good sensing, minimized interference possibilities etc. etc. etc. AND we'll AUTOMATICALLY get booted from any channels that they broadcasters want to license and get back. There's really no down side to them. We take all of the risk. Laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chiefof OET Patrick Leary wrote: Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." :) As has been posted on this thread, most of the bad guys are not high powered, we just have self assembled systems rather than out of the box solutions. So start your hypothetical conversation over
RE: [WISPA] Another expert heard from.
Yes, but that's with the self-install indoor CPE, right? Nothing outdoors except the wilderness :) 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 W.D.McKinney Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. As soon as I can this info, I will answer these questions Scriv. So far we we only see 1.5M for coverage with the current rev of software. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:54:52 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > So can we get some real world data on how well it is working? Is the > terrain flat? Wooded? What kind of coverage area are you seeing? Power > levels up and down? Speeds up and down per client? Maximum CPE per > sector currently? Bandwidth used per sector? Is this 802.16 "d" or "e"? > FDD or TDD? Can you tell I have a few questions about WiMax? > Scriv > > > W.D.McKinney wrote: > > >We have BreezeMax 2.3GHz up and running here now :-) > > > >-Dee > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Marlon K. Schafer > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: WISPA General List > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:31:57 -0900 > >Subject: > >Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > > > > > > > > > >>I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than > wifi. > >> > >>Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? > >> > >>laters, > >>marlon > >> > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "WISPA General List" > >>Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM > >>Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>All, > >>> > >>>I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. > >>> > >>>As quoted from the article; > >>> > >>>"Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public > >>>buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already > >>>equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the > project > >>> > >>> > >>>is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren't strong enough. > >>> > >>>The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger > >>>signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a > >>>base station antenna. > >>> > >>>"The technology today doesn't penetrate walls very well; leaves can > >>> > >>> > >>even > >> > >> > >>>get in its way because it's a radio signal," said Hart. "Right > >>> > >>> > >>behind this > >> > >> > >>>technology is WiMax. Nobody's selling that yet but it's so close to > >>> > >>> > >>taking > >> > >> > >>>over WiFi, it's holding up a lot of projects." " > >>> > >>>Link to full article below; > >>>http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Dawn DiPietro > >>>-- > >>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > >> > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 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. ***
RE: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions
I don't know, but I'll check and report back Jack. I know we have used several. The standards and rules are tight for them, so I think our decision may be based on locality. Stay tuned please. 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 Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions Patrick, What lab does Alvarion currently use? Do you have any specific labs that you would recommend to WISPs who may want to get their own equipment combinations certified? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: > We have for years, though I am not personally involved in those > processes. Our 3-digit grantee code is LKT and all equipment > authorizations for all brands) are easily and comprehensively searchable > even if you do not know the grantee code via > https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm. Our > first grant goes back to September 1994. We currently have 54 grants. > Filing fees alone for a Part 15 device was $985 in 2000 > http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.pdf. > > Actual lab costs per device might average about $3,000, less employee > time on our end doing the filing, working with the labs, etc. I estimate > that we have over $1 million invested easily in the certifications alone > and this does not include the millions in R&D spent designing and > building to meet that compliance in the first place across the many > regulatory domains we sell in to. > > Of course, none of this includes ISO certification, UL (Underwriter's > Labs) listings, environmental certifications, corrosion testing, and 3rd > party MTBF testing. > > These costs are incurred by legitimate vendors like us, Trango, > Motorola, and some others. We all gut it up and do what's required of us > as cost of doing business. (And Alvarion was a "little guy" when I > started, yet we still did what was required and even today we are viewed > as a small guy by the big guys.) > > 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 Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:10 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions > > Who's already used a Part 15 certification lab? > > What was good or bad about your experience? > > How much did the certification cost? > > Would you use that lab again? > > > Do you want to find a certification lab? > Here's the link that I got right off of WISPA's homepage: > > > https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm > > -- 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/ 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] Another expert heard from.
As soon as I can this info, I will answer these questions Scriv. So far we we only see 1.5M for coverage with the current rev of software. -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:54:52 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > So can we get some real world data on how well it is working? Is the > terrain flat? Wooded? What kind of coverage area are you seeing? Power > levels up and down? Speeds up and down per client? Maximum CPE per > sector currently? Bandwidth used per sector? Is this 802.16 "d" or "e"? > FDD or TDD? Can you tell I have a few questions about WiMax? > Scriv > > > W.D.McKinney wrote: > > >We have BreezeMax 2.3GHz up and running here now :-) > > > >-Dee > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Marlon K. Schafer > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: WISPA General List > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:31:57 -0900 > >Subject: > >Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > > > > > > > > > >>I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than > wifi. > >> > >>Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? > >> > >>laters, > >>marlon > >> > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "WISPA General List" > >>Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM > >>Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>All, > >>> > >>>I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. > >>> > >>>As quoted from the article; > >>> > >>>"Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public > >>>buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already > >>>equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the > project > >>> > >>> > >>>is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren’t strong enough. > >>> > >>>The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger > >>>signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a > >>>base station antenna. > >>> > >>>“The technology today doesn’t penetrate walls very well; leaves can > >>> > >>> > >>even > >> > >> > >>>get in its way because it’s a radio signal,” said Hart. “Right > >>> > >>> > >>behind this > >> > >> > >>>technology is WiMax. Nobody’s selling that yet but it’s so close to > >>> > >>> > >>taking > >> > >> > >>>over WiFi, it’s holding up a lot of projects.” " > >>> > >>>Link to full article below; > >>>http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Dawn DiPietro > >>>-- > >>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > >> > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chiefof OET
I remember clear back in 2001 or so. I was fortunate enough to have breakfast with Michael Marcus. Patrick, i think you were there for this. I remember him telling the story about FCC certified computers. Back in the day, it was only legal to sell a computer as a complete certified system. Then along came Michael Dell. He said, screw the rules, they are stupid. He started selling anyone any combination of certified components that they wanted. Soon, there were so many systems out there that were NOT causing interference issues that it was completely impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Out of that comes today's way to buy a computer. The COMPONENT gets certified, you mix and match them all you want. As I recall, Mike M. said that they (the FCC) knew that SOME combinations WOULD cause a problem. But that the likely hood of it being an issue was outweighed by the benefits of the new rules. We've already had one adjustment on the part 15 certification rules lately. And it was sorely needed. I remember calling the FCC and talking to John Reed. One of the guys that WROTE the FCC rules. Back in 1999 when I get started it as ILLEGAL for me to use an Andrew antenna on a BreezeCOM system. Even though Andrew made the antennas and all BreezeCOM did was put a different sticker on them. I remember more than one argument with Patrick (and others) about whether or not it was ok for me to use the $60 Andrew antennas vs. the $200 BreezeCOM ones. As it turned out, I was wrong, it wasn't OK. But the rule was also wrong and has since been changed. We'll eventually see more of the rules changed. Look at the unique connector rule. The FCC certifies EVERY new consumer device with an RPSMA connector on it. It's hardly a unique solution anymore. Yet anyone can get it certified. I do NOT recommend that anyone out there build a non certified system. Mine isn't perfect but it's very close and getting better all of the time. But what are we really supposed to do? There is NO government enforcement of the rules. What's the incentive to obey them? I have operators in my area running illegal networks and I've had very limited success in getting them fixed let along shut down. And the WHOLE market is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference. In a fight (like the fight for usable spectrum) the bad guy always makes the rules. If one guy goes to high power, all have to. No, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make a more usable network. It's not completely the WISP that looks bad when these discussions take place. It's also those in government that turn a totally blind eye. No matter what gets done in the field. I'll tell you something about the whitespaces too. The broadcasters do NOT want to see auctioned spectrum. They loose too much control that way. They'd be fools to push for that. The spectrum WILL be opened up for someone. Who's the least possible threat to them long term? Unlicensed. The WISPs are, by far, the best friend that the broadcasters have in this fight. We want smart radios, good sensing, minimized interference possibilities etc. etc. etc. AND we'll AUTOMATICALLY get booted from any channels that they broadcasters want to license and get back. There's really no down side to them. We take all of the risk. Laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chiefof OET Patrick Leary wrote: Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." :) As has been posted on this thread, most of the bad guys are not high powered, we just have self assembled systems rather than out of the box solutions. So start your hypothetical conversation over again and replace high powered solutions with " low powered versatile solutions" and follow that line of reasoning. I'm on record of amps and high powered is not good, most of the time. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from.
So can we get some real world data on how well it is working? Is the terrain flat? Wooded? What kind of coverage area are you seeing? Power levels up and down? Speeds up and down per client? Maximum CPE per sector currently? Bandwidth used per sector? Is this 802.16 "d" or "e"? FDD or TDD? Can you tell I have a few questions about WiMax? Scriv W.D.McKinney wrote: We have BreezeMax 2.3GHz up and running here now :-) -Dee - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:31:57 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than wifi. Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. All, I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. As quoted from the article; "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren’t strong enough. The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a base station antenna. “The technology today doesn’t penetrate walls very well; leaves can even get in its way because it’s a radio signal,” said Hart. “Right behind this technology is WiMax. Nobody’s selling that yet but it’s so close to taking over WiFi, it’s holding up a lot of projects.” " Link to full article below; http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
There is a critical difference Patrick. WE (us, the wisps) are SPECIFICALLY asking that the whitespaces rules include smart radio technology. It won't be easy for anyone to run illegal networks. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:48 PM Subject: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET What should I say next time I'm before people like Julie Knapp, who heads OET. Here is a potential script: Me - "Good morning sir, congratulations on earning the Chief position." Julie - "Thank you Patrick. What's on your mind?" Me - "Julie, we could really use more spectrum for UL." Julie - "Well, you already have 589.5 megahertz total from pieces between 902 MHz to 5.7850 GHz." Me - "Yes, that's true and we do appreciate it and know you have been a personal champion for UL spectrum, but we need more so we can build networks that will permit self-installation even in rural areas." Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." Me - "I can imagine. I'd like to see Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner in a mud wrestling match - well clothed of course. But back to the WISPs, they don't follow the rules because you guys don't enforce the rule." Julie - "Nice visual, thanks...So you are telling me that a principal characteristic of your market is that operators will only do what's right if they know someone is looking?" Me - "No, not all. Yes many, and I admit that even many leader WISPs believe that is an acceptable attitude so long as power rules aren't violated." Julie - "So you are saying they pick and choose the rules they are prepared to tolerate versus those we require?" Me - "Well, yeah, pretty much that's what they do. They argue among themselves about which rules they think matter." Julie - "Yes, so I know. Interesting attitude. I hear there's been lots of arguing lately about lots of things and what is required of them even though we have been clear, like CALEA, Form 477, the purposes of an STA, etc," Me - "What can I say? They believe as small players filling what they see as a gap that they should be allowed some leeway so they can save money." Julie - "Did you tell them that the latest data shows 90% of all U.S. zip codes have at least two broadband providers? The gaps aren't so big anymore." Me - "Well there ARE still holes WITHIN those zip codes Julie." Julie - "For the short term, yes." Me - "Yeah, so what abou..." Julie - "No." Me - "Excuse me sir? No what?" Julie - "No more hanging my ass out on a limb for a community that I generally love for their passion and can-do attitude. No, because that's not enough of a good enough reason to let them keep giving me heart burn and generally slapping me in the face every time we try to really help them or blaming us for their inability to keep their own house in order." PAUSE... Me - "How 'bout them Colts?" Julie - "Great game wasn't it. We're done here though, unless you want to fill me in about what those licensed carriers are doing on the WiMAX front; the Commission is really excited about that!" Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
A few years ago I ran up a network design that would cover over 80% of my whole country. Redundant feeds, high speed backhauls etc. It would have cost around $1million. AND that would have purchased the first 500 cpe units. It doesn't have to cost as much as people somehow seem to keep spending. Even if I really screwed up and missed my prices and we had to DOUBLE the cost, it's still no where near what seems to be being spent as is. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Dennis, The reason given in the article for this was so the vendor could incur the cost of building the network. For coverage of the whole county to become a reality they need a company with the resources to do this. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. "It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age," said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. "Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart." The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and AT&T also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like th
[WISPA] WaveIP 900 MHz OFDM or DSSS
Does anyone have any experience with either of these products and can provide some range and speed readings NLOS and LOS? Thanks. Sincerely, Joshua -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions
Patrick, What lab does Alvarion currently use? Do you have any specific labs that you would recommend to WISPs who may want to get their own equipment combinations certified? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: We have for years, though I am not personally involved in those processes. Our 3-digit grantee code is LKT and all equipment authorizations for all brands) are easily and comprehensively searchable even if you do not know the grantee code via https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm. Our first grant goes back to September 1994. We currently have 54 grants. Filing fees alone for a Part 15 device was $985 in 2000 http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.pdf. Actual lab costs per device might average about $3,000, less employee time on our end doing the filing, working with the labs, etc. I estimate that we have over $1 million invested easily in the certifications alone and this does not include the millions in R&D spent designing and building to meet that compliance in the first place across the many regulatory domains we sell in to. Of course, none of this includes ISO certification, UL (Underwriter's Labs) listings, environmental certifications, corrosion testing, and 3rd party MTBF testing. These costs are incurred by legitimate vendors like us, Trango, Motorola, and some others. We all gut it up and do what's required of us as cost of doing business. (And Alvarion was a "little guy" when I started, yet we still did what was required and even today we are viewed as a small guy by the big guys.) 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 Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions Who's already used a Part 15 certification lab? What was good or bad about your experience? How much did the certification cost? Would you use that lab again? Do you want to find a certification lab? Here's the link that I got right off of WISPA's homepage: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm -- 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] way OT: Did I mention I love the WISP business?
Fair warning, a post like this reflects a large ego by its very nature, but it comes from a committed champion of WISPs none-the-lessFor God's sake, please don't post any "thanks for your efforts" type replies. I'm not fishing for them or public appreciation in general, though I do appreciate the thoughts of those so inclined. Those inclined to be critical, go for it, but offlist is best as this post is gag-worthy as it is. I just wanted to fully explain why I do what I do, wrong or not. So after all this rancor and railing, I wanted to close today with a post about some of things I love about this business and WISPs in particular. Let me explain it by telling you that for me it is not unlike when I was an enlisted soldier in the Army (alas, too many years ago). In the military one lives among people from all walks of life; it was the rule, not the exception, that even in a unit as small as any one platoon I'd be among former inner-city gang bangers, cowboys, country boys, beach bums, suburban college drop-outs (I was one of those at the time), hillbillies, former refugees, and a few Puerto Ricans and Samoans. Outside of the service, we had little in common, or less. But there we all wore green. We all toiled in the paradoxical boredom of maintain gear and training, largely in the hope that we'd really never need to use those things we kept squared away. My brothers-in-arms could get on my nerves second only to my little brother, and I often found myself apologizing to the locals overseas in the wake of my peers' youthful boorishness and cluelessness about offending our host nationals. But put those guys together and they could do anything, they could build a machine from the dirt; they could solve any problem. I discovered among them artists, musicians, and any number of wonderous talents. I would have fought alongside with any of them (well, almost) and Lord knows I broke up more fights than I can remember many a late night out, as happens when young, fit and hard-partying men get bored and get stupid. But because I loved and respected them, I challenged them and did what I could to pull out their excellence. The camaraderie and sense of mission we shared was indescribable, as were the frustrations and conflicts engendered by the nature of tasks and mission. This market and WISPs are not unlike that to me. I have the great joy of meeting, knowing, and working with some of the most interesting people imaginable. WISPs are people that by sheer force of their will and stubbornness create their own realities. You are not corporate automatons working just some job to earn your 3 hots and a cot. You genuinely care about your communities, and with rare exceptions, you are not just looking for the quick hit off the backs of those your service. I get that, have always gotten that and I get enormous professional and personal satisfaction knowing I am playing and have played a not inconsequential role in literally nurturing this market. I've had the joy of witnessing and participating in the growth of many, many WISPs regardless of their vendor affiliation - complex and passionate people like John Scrivner, aka Scriv, from his first moments in this business to his current role as WISP sage and literal grandfather. This market and my work have earned me the friendships of a fantastic cast of characters that enrich my life on a daily basis. I live here in the vendor world though, and while I appreciate you may have perspectives to which I cannot have, I am also daily witness to what is happening in the other sides of this business, the really big money rolling in. And while I know many of you are happy to remain small, and there is zero wrong with and nothing to disparage about that, some of that money IS going to some of your peers who have who have decided they want to break out of the I'm-just-a-little-guy mindset enough to actually do it. Nothing but you prevents any of you that would like to do the same from doing it. It is all about your choices and your desire. That should be empowering. Your success is NOT in the hands of the FCC or any other entity; it's in your hands. I've been here a long time in this space and I watch with some measure of pain as the WISP community at large has a hell of a time learning from its mistakes. I have my very first posts archived about an FCC I intentionally started on the old isp-wireless list (there was no other) back in April of 2000 and the issues are just the same. The same characteristics that makes WISPs can-do and self-sufficient is the same thing that fosters a fatal flaw - that's an abject refusal by so many to accept authority or otherwise conform to certain norms. WISPs are sort of like guerillas and in the event you can manage to organize long enough to defeat the disciplined forces that threaten you, or at least carve out a solid niche, your nature makes you prone then to again factionalize (like we've seen happen before). I want to do what I can to li
[WISPA] The need to broaden public understanding of our industry's service to the community
;>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces > >>>> > >>>>All, > >>>> > >>>>Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look > >>>> > >>>>bad. > >>>>Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules. > >>>> > >>>>Regards, > >>>>Dawn DiPietro > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Patrick Leary wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that > >>>>>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of > >>>>>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the > >>>>>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines." > >>>>> > >>>>>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the > >>>>>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now where > >>>>>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access > >>>>>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist. > >>>>> > >>>>>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that > >>>>>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. > >>>>>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and > >>>>>discouraging the slippery slope. > >>>>> > >>>>>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 Jack Unger > >>>>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM > >>>>>To: WISPA General List > >>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces > >>>>> > >>>>>Steve, > >>>>> > >>>>>I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt > >>>>> > >>>>white > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does. > >>>>> > >>>>>jack > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Steve Stroh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Jack: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Consider... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been > >>>>>>steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels > >>>>>>70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels > >>>>>>52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful > >>>>>>terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power > >>>>>>license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they > >>>>>>are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum > >>>>>>sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another > >>>>>>decade or so). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as > >>>>>>advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast > >>>>>>spectrum. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>>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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>--- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Steve Stroh > >>>>>>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>George Rogato > >>> > >>>Welcome to WISPA > >>> > >>>www.wispa.org > >>> > >>>http://signup.wispa.org/ > >>>-- > >>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > > > > -- > > 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/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ __ NOD32 2046 (20070208) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.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] Another expert heard from.
We have BreezeMax 2.3GHz up and running here now :-) -Dee - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:31:57 -0900 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than wifi. > > Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? > > laters, > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM > Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > > > > All, > > > > I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. > > > > As quoted from the article; > > > > "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public > > buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already > > equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project > > > is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren’t strong enough. > > > > The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger > > signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a > > base station antenna. > > > > “The technology today doesn’t penetrate walls very well; leaves can > even > > get in its way because it’s a radio signal,” said Hart. “Right > behind this > > technology is WiMax. Nobody’s selling that yet but it’s so close to > taking > > over WiFi, it’s holding up a lot of projects.” " > > > > Link to full article below; > > http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 > > > > Regards, > > Dawn DiPietro > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
All, Also I forgot to mention they want to cover the whole county. But if you read the article you already knew that and I apologize. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, If you are speaking of downtown St. Louis. They already chose AT&T. But on the other hand if you are speaking of St. Louis County then that is an awful lot to take on considering they want the vendor to eat the cost of the hardware. Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
All, If you are speaking of downtown St. Louis. They already chose AT&T. But on the other hand if you are speaking of St. Louis County then that is an awful lot to take on considering they want the vendor to eat the cost of the hardware. Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions
We have for years, though I am not personally involved in those processes. Our 3-digit grantee code is LKT and all equipment authorizations for all brands) are easily and comprehensively searchable even if you do not know the grantee code via https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm. Our first grant goes back to September 1994. We currently have 54 grants. Filing fees alone for a Part 15 device was $985 in 2000 http://www.fcc.gov/fees/2000oetguide.pdf. Actual lab costs per device might average about $3,000, less employee time on our end doing the filing, working with the labs, etc. I estimate that we have over $1 million invested easily in the certifications alone and this does not include the millions in R&D spent designing and building to meet that compliance in the first place across the many regulatory domains we sell in to. Of course, none of this includes ISO certification, UL (Underwriter's Labs) listings, environmental certifications, corrosion testing, and 3rd party MTBF testing. These costs are incurred by legitimate vendors like us, Trango, Motorola, and some others. We all gut it up and do what's required of us as cost of doing business. (And Alvarion was a "little guy" when I started, yet we still did what was required and even today we are viewed as a small guy by the big guys.) 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 Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions Who's already used a Part 15 certification lab? What was good or bad about your experience? How much did the certification cost? Would you use that lab again? Do you want to find a certification lab? Here's the link that I got right off of WISPA's homepage: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm -- 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/ 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] Routers; OpenWRT
> What I would like to know is what is the cheapest router that is > supported by OpenWRT? I'd almost guarantee it's the Buffalo WHR-G54S. I've only one so far. It's been at grandma's house doing a 300' link in client mode. It's been installed almost a year now, without a hiccup (not even a reboot as far as I know). Believe it or not, Grandma's picky. And, I she's an hour away so I needed something reliable. It's practically the same hardware as the WRT-54G V1-4 (not the neutered version 5). It's only got one external antenna. But, I'm using the stock di-pole for the 300' window-to-window link. I love it. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7666821&st=wh&type=product&id=1134701703049 $45 (regularly $50) Its cheaper at Newegg.com. And, check out http://www.dd-wrt.com Thanks. Matt This is a GREAT hack of the linksys firmware. Has PPTP, VLAN, QOS, SER (VOIP), SSH, HTTPS, Samba, client mode, etc. Great GUI and even skins. If you find a cheaper product, let me know. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Part 15 Certification Lab Questions
Who's already used a Part 15 certification lab? What was good or bad about your experience? How much did the certification cost? Would you use that lab again? Do you want to find a certification lab? Here's the link that I got right off of WISPA's homepage: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm -- 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] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Jack Unger wrote: To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack I know you would, Jack. I've thought about this for awhile now. I would like us, WISPA, as an organization be able to do this to help support our wisps.. The only thing hindering us, is that we don't have enough people-time to get simple things like this going. I would pay to have someone come to my council and lobby for me. If a wisp has a shot at winning or losing a muni contract in their back yard I would think it would be money well spent. Maybe this is something we can work on... Any volunteers? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." "Where did you obtain the information that WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules? You are saying deep pocketed lobbyist's desires are more important than small businesses that provide 80% of the employment in this country? The considerable risk is stiffling innovation by requiring megacorp deep pockets for entry fee." Julie - "Nice visual, thanks...So you are telling me that a principal characteristic of your market is that operators will only do what's right if they know someone is looking?" "No, I'm telling you 'intent and spirit of the law' is a rational concept. If you create an untenable environment that favors big business, most will simply do what is right and look at the regulatory agency as an impediment rather than a good thing for the society they live in." Julie - "So you are saying they pick and choose the rules they are prepared to tolerate versus those we require?" "I'm saying that what you 'require' can only be enforced if respected. If you create rules that favor special interests rather than the general public, you create disrespect and there is a natural tendency to ignore your requirements." Julie - "Yes, so I know. Interesting attitude. I hear there's been lots of arguing lately about lots of things and what is required of them even though we have been clear, like CALEA, Form 477, the purposes of an STA, etc," "Refer to my last answer. Many don't believe your CALEA requirements are clear at all. Most want to cooperate but are unwilling to make major capital investments in order to do so. The telcos were subsidized to meet original CALEA legislation requirements. WISPs would just ask the same consideration. Because the current business environment in this country is one of distrust of government based on observations, many question your motives in requiring Form 477. Observations like the creation of an unbalanced playing field with telco deregulation. Observations like cellular companies given years to comply with enhanced emergency service and VoIP providers given months. Observations like cellular companies still not in complete compliance without penalties. Most in this country feel respect must be earned, not dictated. When you create regulations without the technology to implement, you create disrespect. When you regulate to favor big business over the public interests, you create disrespect. You'll need to reverse trends and recreate an even playing field if you want cooperation." Julie - "Did you tell them that the latest data shows 90% of all U.S. zip codes have at least two broadband providers? The gaps aren't so big anymore." "Look at your data. It's flawed. One broadband sub in a zip code does not extrapolate to 90%. Have you noticed the U.S. is 20th in broadband deployment behind Irkgoofistan?" Me - "Yeah, so what abou..." Julie - "No." "Figures. Call me when you're interested in making real progress and not being embarrassed by Irkgoofistan. We'll get it done for you quickly and efficiently by the people that built this country." -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
George - Please see my answers inline, below. George Rogato wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Dennis, Thanks for taking the time to talk to the local government officials. I can understand them paying 60 grand to see if it's feasible. I'm sorry that they don't believe that a local WISP could do it. In an ideal world, there would be a local WISP who is open-minded enough and business-creative enough to step up and do it. Having a good business model would, of course, be a necessity. On the other hand, it will be a LARGE project and it's possible that a local WISP, no matter how business-savvy, may not have the financial resources to take this on. jack Now this area is something WISPA "can" do to help. All that is required is more membership and some willingness by our members to contribute some time to format a strategy. Jack, if Dennis offered to pay you to show up at his city council meeting and to lobby for his company, would you go and support Dennis and do you think the outcome could be different? Long question. George George, WISPA can (and must) do a WHOLE lot more to help. Having said that, I have to recognize that WISPA is a volunteer organization and very few WISPA members have much "free time" to contribute to developing standards, etc. Most WISPs are simply too busy just trying to survive in this business, given that the odds are stacked against them by the money, lobbying power, and political experience of the large incumbent players. Whether we like it or not, the broadband wireless business has "grown up" and gone "mainstream". The broadband wireless business is now recognized as legitimate. Broadband wireless technology has been proven to work and every large company in the world wants a "piece of the action". WiMAX; muni; mesh; 3G are examples of this. WISPA must find the courage, the conviction and yes, the money, to stand up and lead at this critical point in time, because if WISPA doesn't then there really is no other credible, non-profit organization to do this. (Please do let me know if I am overlooking anyone's organization). To answer your second question, yes - if Dennis paid me to appear at his City Council meeting to lobby for his company I would be happy to do that. The only requirement would be that I talk with Dennis first to be sure that I was knowledgeable enough about his company to represent it correctly. If he told me about (or if I detected) areas within his company that could benefit from strengthening then I would want to confidentially discuss those areas with him and suggest ways he could address those areas and/or build those strengths. Given a strong and honest City Council presentation, backed up by the support and credibility of WISPA then it's certainly possible that the outcome could be different. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers; OpenWRT
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 12:50 -0600, Matt wrote: > What I would like to know is what is the cheapest router that is > supported by OpenWRT? I'd almost guarantee it's the Buffalo WHR-G54S. I've only one so far. It's been at grandma's house doing a 300' link in client mode. It's been installed almost a year now, without a hiccup (not even a reboot as far as I know). Believe it or not, Grandma's picky. And, I she's an hour away so I needed something reliable. It's practically the same hardware as the WRT-54G V1-4 (not the neutered version 5). It's only got one external antenna. But, I'm using the stock di-pole for the 300' window-to-window link. I love it. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7666821&st=wh&type=product&id=1134701703049 $45 (regularly $50) And, check out http://www.dd-wrt.com This is a GREAT hack of the linksys firmware. Has PPTP, VLAN, QOS, SER (VOIP), SSH, HTTPS, Samba, client mode, etc. Great GUI and even skins. If you find a cheaper product, let me know. Brian PS DD-WRT can even be installed on Linksys WRT-54G v5+. Here's the hardware support list: Linksys WRT54G 1.0 CDF0xxx or CDF1xxx Linksys WRT54G 1.1 CDF2xxx or CDF3xxx Linksys WRT54G 2.0 CDF5xxx Linksys WRT54G 2.2 CDF7xxx Linksys WRT54G 3.0 CDF8xxx Linksys WRT54G 3.1 CDF9xxx Linksys WRT54G 4.0 CDFAxxx Linksys WRT54G 5.0 (JTAG only with cfe update, see here ) Linksys WRT54GL 1.0 CL7Axxx Linksys WRT54GL 1.1 CL7Bxxx Linksys WRT54GS 1.0 CGN0xxx or CGN1xxx Linksys WRT54GS 1.1 CGN2xxx Linksys WRT54GS 2.0 CGN3xxx Linksys WRT54GS 2.1 CGN4xxx Linksys WRT54GS 3.0 CGN5xxx Linksys WRT54GS 4.0 CGN6xxx Allnet ALL0277 Buffalo WHR-G54S Buffalo WHR-HP-G54S Buffalo WBR-G54 Buffalo WLA-G54 Buffalo WBR2-G54 Buffalo WBR2-G54S Belkin F5D7130/7330 (2mb flash) Belkin F5D7230-4 v1444 (2mb flash) ASUS WL500G-Deluxe Motorola WR850G Siemens Gigaset SE505 Ravo W54-RT Askey RT210W -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Another expert heard from.
WiMAX will create better link budgets, power for power and band for band, because the technology employed is more sophisticated -- both more efficient on Mhz by Mhz basis and more directive (e.g. fast-switching and adaptive beam-forming plus MIMO). 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 Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than wifi. Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. > All, > > I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. > > As quoted from the article; > > "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public > buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already > equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project > is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren't strong enough. > > The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger > signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a > base station antenna. > > "The technology today doesn't penetrate walls very well; leaves can even > get in its way because it's a radio signal," said Hart. "Right behind this > technology is WiMax. Nobody's selling that yet but it's so close to taking > over WiFi, it's holding up a lot of projects." " > > Link to full article below; > http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 > > 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/ 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/
Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Marty Dougherty wrote: Of course I am a paid member- I wouldn't have a right to be in the middle of this conversation without it! Marty And regardless of a difference of opinions or not, your membership is greatly appreciated. And your opinion is important. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Of course I am a paid member- I wouldn't have a right to be in the middle of this conversation without it! Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Marty, I believe that this list of 'open to the public,' and therefore users are not subject to the code of ethics that a member agrees to when they join. The paid members have access to a private discussion group with added benefits over and above the public list. The private list is also where the official WISPA positions are decided. I would also hope that any 'paid member' would hold themselves to a higher standard than perhaps the 'rouge' list user. I think that the official WISPA position has always promoted compliance with the law and regulations. However, I have also learned a lot from those that may 'bend or break' the rules too. Ultimately, it is up to me to weigh the risk/return proposition for my company. If you are a paid member; thanks and congratulations. If not, please consider joining and raise the bar for WISPA as a Professional organization. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:26 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. It's simple Marlon- WISPA can affect this crowd- If WISPA demands all members be 100% legal operators or NO MEMBERSHIP allowed that would send a powerful message to the FCC and the WISP community. >From the code of ethics- ARTICLE II We will conduct ourselves in such a manner as to bring credit to our industry and enhance its reputation. ARTICLE III We will publicize our services in a professional manner upholding the dignity of our profession. We will avoid all conduct, practices and promotion likely to discredit or do injury to our field of endeavor ARTICLE IV We will strive to broaden public understanding and enhance public regard and confidence in our Industry Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE ind
Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
And who's gonna police it? Who's in a position to enforce it? We want as many people hanging around WISPA so that we can influence them. We don't want to drive away potential members just because the FCC isn't holding up it's part of the deal. Overall, I agree with you. People that are outside of the rules have no business in the industry. Especially the ones that do it to a degree that mess up the industry's reputation. But practically, WISPA just isn't in a position to do anything about them yet. Other than apply peer pressure, and I think we're doing a good job of that. I'm not gonna fire my accountant because of Arthur Anderson. marlon - Original Message - From: "Marty Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:26 AM Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. It's simple Marlon- WISPA can affect this crowd- If WISPA demands all members be 100% legal operators or NO MEMBERSHIP allowed that would send a powerful message to the FCC and the WISP community. From the code of ethics- ARTICLE II We will conduct ourselves in such a manner as to bring credit to our industry and enhance its reputation. ARTICLE III We will publicize our services in a professional manner upholding the dignity of our profession. We will avoid all conduct, practices and promotion likely to discredit or do injury to our field of endeavor ARTICLE IV We will strive to broaden public understanding and enhance public regard and confidence in our Industry Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put in in it's place. Now I'm not so sure. Cell phones are where it's at today. I think that as soon as someone builds a pbx that will use the cell phone as a person's extension line and make it easy to put people on hold, transfer calls etc., the
Re: [WISPA] Another expert heard from.
I wonder where the heck the idea that WiMax has a stronger signal than wifi. Clearly these guys are talking about licensed vs. unlicensed wimax eh? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. All, I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. As quoted from the article; "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren’t strong enough. The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a base station antenna. “The technology today doesn’t penetrate walls very well; leaves can even get in its way because it’s a radio signal,” said Hart. “Right behind this technology is WiMax. Nobody’s selling that yet but it’s so close to taking over WiFi, it’s holding up a lot of projects.” " Link to full article below; http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 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/
Turn in the rotten apples... Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Mac, When I run across operators like that (have one in my area) I try to help them by explaining the rules. If they won't fix things I turn them in. As a WISPA member (and, more importantly a member in good standing of this entire industry) you have an obligation to try to help them in case they just didn't know better. (and if they are using Hyperlink there's a good chance that they don't know what the rules are) If they are doing it deliberately, you SHOULD report them to the FCC. The next question is, will the FCC do anything about it when you do turn someone in? marlon - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Marty, That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in every avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it inevitable! It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but that is just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in accordance to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our systems are not certified by Patrick's definition, but as long as we attempt to build one that "could be" certified by matching the correct antennas with the correct radios, maintain legal limits and good judgment through manufacturers papers - we will all be OK. I have a WISP in my area that is running two towers with 2 watt Hyperlink amps at the 12db Omni's. Believe me - I know about jack ass operators and detest that type of operator. It really shows ignorance to pull such a stunt, but these types of operators know absolutely nothing anyway. Once again - what we are doing and tolerating is nothing new - - these type folks are everywhere in everything and every business in life - - just look around! Mac -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC trip support
Hi All, I want to thank Frank Muto for stepping up to the plate as a vendor to help fund next weeks FCC trip. We have a great team on it's way and they are prepared to pay their own way. Frank has offered to help pay expenses. For those that haven't checked out Franks Postini offerings here's yet another reason to find a way to support him. He's supporting our efforts to build this business! laters, marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
I like that idea Steve. In a way some of us have already been doing this. I've ALWAYS offered to talk to anyone's competitors if they think it'll help to have an outsider involved. Few have ever taken me up on the offer though. I think your idea for a wispa committee to investigate is a good one. I think one more step should be added though. The WISPA committee should FIRST try to contact the offending wisp and if that leads to nothing we'd work toward a formal FCC action. I'm guessing that we'd have great support from the FCC's enforcement division if we'd follow the steps you've outlined. Do you guys think that I should contact some of the enforcement folks at the FCC and float the idea? Anyone willing to put together a 3 to 5 member committee to accomplish this? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:47 AM Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of "it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?!" I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in eve
Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
- Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:27 AM Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Marlon, Correct me if I am wrong, wasn't it you that was looking for an amp for a 15 mile link of an omni the other day? Yes. But there's NOTHING outside the rules about that marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Jack Unger wrote: Dennis, Thanks for taking the time to talk to the local government officials. I can understand them paying 60 grand to see if it's feasible. I'm sorry that they don't believe that a local WISP could do it. In an ideal world, there would be a local WISP who is open-minded enough and business-creative enough to step up and do it. Having a good business model would, of course, be a necessity. On the other hand, it will be a LARGE project and it's possible that a local WISP, no matter how business-savvy, may not have the financial resources to take this on. jack Now this area is something WISPA "can" do to help. All that is required is more membership and some willingness by our members to contribute some time to format a strategy. Jack, if Dennis offered to pay you to show up at his city council meeting and to lobby for his company, would you go and support Dennis and do you think the outcome could be different? Long question. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
Patrick Leary wrote: Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." :) As has been posted on this thread, most of the bad guys are not high powered, we just have self assembled systems rather than out of the box solutions. So start your hypothetical conversation over again and replace high powered solutions with " low powered versatile solutions" and follow that line of reasoning. I'm on record of amps and high powered is not good, most of the time. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] I've said my peace, the rest is up to you, to WISPs
And I remain your friend and market champion for another 8 years, God willing. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. 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] Are these analogous?
OK Patrick this is where a spirited difference of opinion gets annoying by your incessant need to be right, the wall is not black but you keep insisting it is and will tell us we're idiots (in your not so delicate language) until we back down, the most undesirable debater. You compare the food we eat with broadband, no comparison, cows are all the same product just some tested and some not. Like saying Alvarion is all the same but some specs may be out of wack on some of your equipment, again not a bright analogy. Your city example makes no sense at all, if my city becomes a WISP I certainly didn't do a very good job of lobbying them to realize they get tax money from me and not from their own WISP plus do they really want to give tech support? I guess why I will bow out of this debate after all is because I know you won't compromise or concede and will continue to find irrational apples to oranges comparisons. PLUS I actually have work to do so you have fun trying to tell us we're all wet, I again ask does you boss really like that you constantly challenging potential clients? You never really answered that in yesterday's version of "As The Stomach Turns'. Anyway we agree that we're different people but I have to work so buh bye for now. Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Are these analogous? I genuinely asking if you guys see parallels here: At you next local live stock auction, make sure to allow equal access and free stalls for suppliers that did not pay to participate. They have also not had their live stock certified for safety. Mad cow disease? Chances are vast it will never happen and it is a risk you are prepared to take to get the cheap stuff. Williams Ranch down the road will just have to get over it. At you next state fair, please make an advance announcement to farms outside the state that they can get free stalls. No, no state inspection required. It is worth the risk to get some cheap peaches. What's a few worms? We might even know he produce is bug free and tasty; it'll be cheaper than our local growers so let him in! Next month, let's allow that guy who has been hanging around the bars telling women he is a doctor to open a clinic in town. We don't really know his qualifications, but he promises he is good and his rates are cheap. Don't worry about Doctor Smith who worked and invested to be legal, he can still serve those rich people. For that new overpass, let's make sure to allow all bidders, no checks required of the soundness of their concrete. I mean, we aren't building the Big Dig after all, so what's the big deal. Oh, tell Acme Concrete down the street to stop whining, the prices for his certified product is too high. What do you mean you local city wants to provide free or low cost broadband and you might lose business, you think just because you are a local business you have the right not to have competition from a public entity? Why would you think that? After all, you think you have a right to use an illegal product that puts your legal competitor down the street at risk. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] New WISPA Member - Welcome Ross
Welcome aboard and congratulations for joining the most serious and earnest of WISP associations. Do not be made uneasy from the debate going on now that I launched. Vigorous debate is healthy and necessary. The debates over the language of the U.S. Constitution was rancorous, often barely civil, but as much was at stake, the serious people keep at it until some consensus was achieved. Much was left unaddressed in the end for the sake of unity (e.g. the slave issue was basically tabled), but it served as a literally revolutionary starting point that has carried us, more or less intact, to today. 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: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] New WISPA Member I would like to introduce all of you to Ross Cornett of Hofnet Communications, Inc.. They are WISPA's newest Principle Member. I have known Ross for a number of years and I am glad to see him make the step up to membership in WISPA. Here is some information about Hofnet Communications, Inc.: Hofnet Communications, Inc. Owners: Ross Cornett Michael Hoffman We are located in Effingham Illinois and have been in business as HofNet since November of 2005. We have grown our network to stretch north to Shelbyville IL, south to Kinmundy IL, West to Altamont IL and East to Dieterich IL. We are building infrastructure to handle VOIP, Video, and Internet to the rural communities. We currently offer 2.4 Ghz, 900 Mhz, and 5.8 Ghz services. We have dialup services also. We supply Internet services to over 15 cities -- 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] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
I'm not talking about migrant workers at all (not sure how you read that). I'm talking about produce shipped from elsewhere sitting in a stall at your local fair for sale without paying the stall fee or otherwise going through those things your local growers had to do to bring their product to market. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Always a pleasure to hear from you, Patrick. The hazard of being complete opposites politically on this list is our different approach to business. Likely you are a Democrat who believes in big government and I am a small government Republican (unlike our very Democrat President Bush) I am in farm country and I know without the illegals billions in fruit would be left on trees. They wouldn't come here if people that lived here would show up to pick, boy did you pick the wrong analogy with me, I live it every day. As for Relativism it couldn't be more true, your perception of the truth is that you lobby for government to make a law so your business can say "see we comply and you don't" but the sales pitch for that law originally was that we wanted to stop interference. The result was that every company is now illegal whether they follow that law in spirit or not because they don't have the stamp of approval saying what we already know, they complied. Taking that required stamp away completes the original intent without having to include the word "illegal" in everything we do. Frankly I'm tired of unknowingly breaking laws just because I walked down the street the wrong way but there was a "LAW" forbidding it because of some special interest when I did no one any harm taking that walk. You are a special interest who uses laws to protect your turf, it's not a bad thing, that seems to be the way lawyers want it to go and the FCC is lawyers. Just don't disrespect the original way Americans did business, let the best man win. How do you drag me into these Patrick, I can see us in a bar debating relativism until the bar closes, you don't have to even pay the tab because in the end I will still use Engenius bridges and unapproved RUAntenna's because they meet the spirit of the law. Just like our illegal farm workers when the big guys won't step up to the WISP's need to compete with cable's free installs we can't justify someone trying to get our business by passing laws not competing on price. But now we're into philosophy so from here out we should debate this off-list. Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Progra
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Dennis, Thanks for taking the time to talk to the local government officials. I can understand them paying 60 grand to see if it's feasible. I'm sorry that they don't believe that a local WISP could do it. In an ideal world, there would be a local WISP who is open-minded enough and business-creative enough to step up and do it. Having a good business model would, of course, be a necessity. On the other hand, it will be a LARGE project and it's possible that a local WISP, no matter how business-savvy, may not have the financial resources to take this on. jack Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. "It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age," said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. "Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart." The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and AT&T also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. "We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this," said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. "Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things." Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gau
[WISPA] Are these analogous?
I genuinely asking if you guys see parallels here: At you next local live stock auction, make sure to allow equal access and free stalls for suppliers that did not pay to participate. They have also not had their live stock certified for safety. Mad cow disease? Chances are vast it will never happen and it is a risk you are prepared to take to get the cheap stuff. Williams Ranch down the road will just have to get over it. At you next state fair, please make an advance announcement to farms outside the state that they can get free stalls. No, no state inspection required. It is worth the risk to get some cheap peaches. What's a few worms? We might even know he produce is bug free and tasty; it'll be cheaper than our local growers so let him in! Next month, let's allow that guy who has been hanging around the bars telling women he is a doctor to open a clinic in town. We don't really know his qualifications, but he promises he is good and his rates are cheap. Don't worry about Doctor Smith who worked and invested to be legal, he can still serve those rich people. For that new overpass, let's make sure to allow all bidders, no checks required of the soundness of their concrete. I mean, we aren't building the Big Dig after all, so what's the big deal. Oh, tell Acme Concrete down the street to stop whining, the prices for his certified product is too high. What do you mean you local city wants to provide free or low cost broadband and you might lose business, you think just because you are a local business you have the right not to have competition from a public entity? Why would you think that? After all, you think you have a right to use an illegal product that puts your legal competitor down the street at risk. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
What should I say next time I'm before people like Julie Knapp, who heads OET. Here is a potential script: Me - "Good morning sir, congratulations on earning the Chief position." Julie - "Thank you Patrick. What's on your mind?" Me - "Julie, we could really use more spectrum for UL." Julie - "Well, you already have 589.5 megahertz total from pieces between 902 MHz to 5.7850 GHz." Me - "Yes, that's true and we do appreciate it and know you have been a personal champion for UL spectrum, but we need more so we can build networks that will permit self-installation even in rural areas." Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well, looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby." Me - "I can imagine. I'd like to see Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner in a mud wrestling match - well clothed of course. But back to the WISPs, they don't follow the rules because you guys don't enforce the rule." Julie - "Nice visual, thanks...So you are telling me that a principal characteristic of your market is that operators will only do what's right if they know someone is looking?" Me - "No, not all. Yes many, and I admit that even many leader WISPs believe that is an acceptable attitude so long as power rules aren't violated." Julie - "So you are saying they pick and choose the rules they are prepared to tolerate versus those we require?" Me - "Well, yeah, pretty much that's what they do. They argue among themselves about which rules they think matter." Julie - "Yes, so I know. Interesting attitude. I hear there's been lots of arguing lately about lots of things and what is required of them even though we have been clear, like CALEA, Form 477, the purposes of an STA, etc," Me - "What can I say? They believe as small players filling what they see as a gap that they should be allowed some leeway so they can save money." Julie - "Did you tell them that the latest data shows 90% of all U.S. zip codes have at least two broadband providers? The gaps aren't so big anymore." Me - "Well there ARE still holes WITHIN those zip codes Julie." Julie - "For the short term, yes." Me - "Yeah, so what abou..." Julie - "No." Me - "Excuse me sir? No what?" Julie - "No more hanging my ass out on a limb for a community that I generally love for their passion and can-do attitude. No, because that's not enough of a good enough reason to let them keep giving me heart burn and generally slapping me in the face every time we try to really help them or blaming us for their inability to keep their own house in order." PAUSE... Me - "How 'bout them Colts?" Julie - "Great game wasn't it. We're done here though, unless you want to fill me in about what those licensed carriers are doing on the WiMAX front; the Commission is really excited about that!" Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] New WISPA Member
HIP HIP HOORAY! Welcome to WISPA Michael and crew. I look for great things to take place due to OUR industry organization. "of the WISPs, by the WISPS, for the WISP" Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] New WISPA Member I would like to introduce all of you to Ross Cornett of Hofnet Communications, Inc.. They are WISPA's newest Principle Member. I have known Ross for a number of years and I am glad to see him make the step up to membership in WISPA. Here is some information about Hofnet Communications, Inc.: Hofnet Communications, Inc. Owners: Ross Cornett Michael Hoffman We are located in Effingham Illinois and have been in business as HofNet since November of 2005. We have grown our network to stretch north to Shelbyville IL, south to Kinmundy IL, West to Altamont IL and East to Dieterich IL. We are building infrastructure to handle VOIP, Video, and Internet to the rural communities. We currently offer 2.4 Ghz, 900 Mhz, and 5.8 Ghz services. We have dialup services also. We supply Internet services to over 15 cities -- 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] Routers
Shannon, Who elsefor example offers a lifetime warranty? Ron Wallace >-Original Message- >From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:33 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers > >Yes, I'm serious. Lots of companies offer a lifetime warranty. >If they have a good product, they should stand behind it. If >their product is junk, then... > > >Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder >KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky >"Your Hometown Broadband Provider" >http://www.KyWiFi.com >Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 >=== >Yes, we are beta testing ISP Buddy! >http://www.ispbuddy.com >=== > > >- Original Message - >From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:19 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers > > >Hi, > >Are you serious? You honestly expect a company to honor a warranty for a >lifetime, especially on a $30 item? How do you expect them to stay in >business? > >Travis >Microserv > >KyWiFi LLC wrote: >> We use the Belkin F5D7230-4 wireless router exclusively and I'm >> proud to report that both us and our subscribers have been VERY >> pleased with them. We do, however, see a failure rate with them of >> around 8% - 10% BUT, they have been good about replacing them >> in a timely manner and have always honored their lifetime warranty. >> We buy them for $30 - $40 and retail them for $100. Here's a link: >> http://www.buy.com/prod/Belkin_F5D7230_4_Wireless_G_Router/q/loc/101/201978542.html >> >> I'm on a mission right now to align our company with manufacturers, >> vendors, etc. who offer and honor a lifetime warranty. If someone is >> only willing to stand behind their product for a year or two, you should >> question that, I know I do. >> >> >> Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder >> KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky >> "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" >> http://www.KyWiFi.com >> Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 >> === >> Yes, we are beta testing ISP Buddy! >> http://www.ispbuddy.com >> === >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers >> >> >> Nothing. We have to deal with low quality in a commodity world. >> >> However another way to approach it might be, who has the best RMA policy. >> Linksys's RMA policy is non-existent, and a provider needs to be prepared to >> eat any failures. That comment is based on, the many hoops linksys makes you >> go through before allowing a return, which cost way more to do than the cost >> to buy a new router. This is the BIG reason, that we have converted 50% of >> all new installs to NON-Linksys routers. Linksys makes my favorite, Home >> Router OS, but I can;t stomach giving all my money to those that don't honor >> their warrantees. Belkin on the other hand has been fabulaous. No >> questions asked, jsut send it back, and get a new one in a few days. Belkin >> also has a nice Default portal page you can see before logining in to see >> private info. Belkin comes with a bundled Content Control trial. Belkon can >> opperate as an AP (Bridge) or Nat Router, and I think also WDS. The only >> reason we don't use Belkin for all our installs is that Linksys is what our >> local distributor carries, and because Belkin had some PPPOE bugs, which >> prevented it from Auto-reconnecting after a disconnect, unless you reboot >> it. So we still use Linksys for PPPOE clients. However that PPOE bug was >> identified over a year ago, maybe its been fixed by now? >> >> The Belkin has a higher price tag unfortuneately, but it is a "N" router, >> and I prefer to support the vendors that honor their warrantees. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:57 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] Routers >> >> >> Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line of >> router out there for home and small business. We have used linksys and >> netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. Anyone >> have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best? I am tired of >> replacing these things and explaining to the customer their lack of quality. >> Your feedback is very welcome. >> >> >> Ross Cornett >> VP >> 217 342 6201 ex 7 >> HofNet Communications, Inc. >> www.HofNet-Communications.com >> >> HofNet-Communications.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:
Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
Dennis, The reason given in the article for this was so the vendor could incur the cost of building the network. For coverage of the whole county to become a reality they need a company with the resources to do this. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet By Clay Barbour ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/29/2007 WiFi users CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's economic development council, is working with a communications engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service regionally. Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in downtown St. Louis. But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and New York are considering it. "It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and more important in this high-tech age," said David Leezer, collaborative vice president. "Just think of the versatility of something like this. It could really set this area apart." The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local providers such as Charter Communications and AT&T also could compete for the job. Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone stretches about 524 square miles. Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. "We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this," said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. "Approaching it on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things." Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to Madison and St. Clair counties. "I think it's exciting, though," he said. "I see the long-term benefit, but we still need to explore it." Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. "We are going to walk, before we run," he s
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Patrick, I agree and appreciate you frustration on this issue! I too remember when I had to compete in the computer business when we only offered FCC certified computer systems, but the 'shade-tree' computer builder was peddling his goods for less money. It wasn't fair to those following the rules. However, today we are still here and all of those 'shade-tree' resellers have long come and gone from my area. I also point out that the a major difference here is perspective...Most of those that are non-compliant are using the 'shade-tree' talents for their own 'internal' use and not reselling uncertified systems to my knowledge. The different perspectives...using one's own concoction vs. a vendor selling a non-certified system against a certified one, is a value proposition for the purchaser to consider. Are there any differences in law to using vs. selling non-certified equipment? I would hope the non-compliant user is aware of their potential liability and has factored that into their 'cost of business' if enforcement is applied on them. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm w
[WISPA] New WISPA Member
I would like to introduce all of you to Ross Cornett of Hofnet Communications, Inc.. They are WISPA's newest Principle Member. I have known Ross for a number of years and I am glad to see him make the step up to membership in WISPA. Here is some information about Hofnet Communications, Inc.: Hofnet Communications, Inc. Owners: Ross Cornett Michael Hoffman We are located in Effingham Illinois and have been in business as HofNet since November of 2005. We have grown our network to stretch north to Shelbyville IL, south to Kinmundy IL, West to Altamont IL and East to Dieterich IL. We are building infrastructure to handle VOIP, Video, and Internet to the rural communities. We currently offer 2.4 Ghz, 900 Mhz, and 5.8 Ghz services. We have dialup services also. We supply Internet services to over 15 cities -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Patrick, I am not sure where you olive, but I am in Louisiana. We grow Shrimp, oysters, crabs, catfish, Tilapia, redfish, Mahi-Mahi (Dolphin Fish) and hundreds more sea food items. I walked through Sam's/Wal-Mart yesterday and it chapped my ass (again) that in their freezers were all of these items at half the price I can get them from home boys. It was all labeled "products of "china" (note small "c" for lack of respect) I see where you are coming from - but your point is made "moot." Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to
RE: [WISPA] Another expert heard from.
If not mistaken, the proposed freq for wimax is in the 3gig range, with 2db more output than 2.4. So would wimax not have even more penetration issues? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Another expert heard from. All, I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. As quoted from the article; "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren't strong enough. The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a base station antenna. "The technology today doesn't penetrate walls very well; leaves can even get in its way because it's a radio signal," said Hart. "Right behind this technology is WiMax. Nobody's selling that yet but it's so close to taking over WiFi, it's holding up a lot of projects." " Link to full article below; http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 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] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces
I actually talked to the guys that are involved with this. Several things now, is that they want to know if it is feasible, that is the 60 grand. Second, they want someone to do it, but mostly it is going to be some big company, and they don't think that they can get a local company to do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Delp Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces Jack, you are correct, St. Louis County is a different entity and does not have jurisdiction in St. Louis City. County is a large government with a lot of cities/towns in its area, and St. Louis City is not part of that. I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal being referred to but I have a lot of good links to follow up on. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV whitespaces The guys in the St. Louis area can correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory is correct, St. Louis County does not include the City of St. Louis (yeah, I know it sounds funny). As I recall, the two governments are distinctly different. This proposal may apply only to the area in the County outside of the City boundaries and not the City itself. Can anyone local to the area clarify? Thanks, jack Dawn DiPietro wrote: > St. Louis County champions regionwide wireless Internet > By Clay Barbour > ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH > 01/29/2007 > WiFi users > > CLAYTON - Tired of its provincial reputation, and hoping to gain an edge > in the marketplace, St. Louis County is seriously considering a plan > that could bring wireless Internet to the entire region. > > The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's > economic development council, is working with a communications > engineering firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it > would cost - to offer Wi-Fi access across the county. > > Officials also have started talking to leaders in surrounding counties > about the possibility of joining forces and offering such a service > regionally. > > Wi-Fi is the term used to describe the service that allows customers to > connect to the Internet without plugging into the wall. Many St. Louis > area businesses already offer the service to their customers and a Wi-Fi > network already covers a 42-square-block area around Kiener Plaza in > downtown St. Louis. > > But the freedom of offering it everywhere within a region has become an > increasingly popular idea. Cities such as Philadelphia and Portland, > Ore., have Wi-Fi systems in place. And cities such as San Francisco and > New York are considering it. > > "It's a tremendous economic development tool, one that becomes more and > more important in this high-tech age," said David Leezer, collaborative > vice president. "Just think of the versatility of something like this. > It could really set this area apart." > > The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the > firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after > determining what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process > to Internet providers to see who could best do the job. > > Google and EarthLink are two of the biggest companies in the field, > providing Wi-Fi for several major cities. But Leezer said local > providers such as Charter Communications and AT&T also could compete for > the job. > > Should the plan prove successful, the St. Louis region would be the > first in the country to offer Wi-Fi on such a wide scale. For example, > Philadelphia's system covers 135 square miles. St. Louis County alone > stretches about 524 square miles. > > Leezer has had meetings with the Leadership Council of Southwest > Illinois and the Economic Development Center of St. Charles County. Both > like the idea of regional Wi-Fi. > > "We are certainly interested in cooperating with St. Louis on this," > said Greg Prestemon, St. Charles County EDC president. "Approaching it > on such a wide scale gives you the potential to do some neat things." > > Patrick McKeehan, executive director of the Leadership Council, said he > is still looking into the issue and trying to gauge its importance to > Madison and St. Clair counties. > > "I think it's exciting, though," he said. "I see the long-term benefit, > but we still need to explore it." > > Leezer said he has not officially met with anyone from the city of St. > Louis or Franklin and Jefferson counties yet. > > "We are going to walk, before we run," he said. "We want to do this. If > someone else wants to join us, they will be welcomed." > > The city of St. Louis has been working for some months to set up a > city
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Always a pleasure to hear from you, Patrick. The hazard of being complete opposites politically on this list is our different approach to business. Likely you are a Democrat who believes in big government and I am a small government Republican (unlike our very Democrat President Bush) I am in farm country and I know without the illegals billions in fruit would be left on trees. They wouldn't come here if people that lived here would show up to pick, boy did you pick the wrong analogy with me, I live it every day. As for Relativism it couldn't be more true, your perception of the truth is that you lobby for government to make a law so your business can say "see we comply and you don't" but the sales pitch for that law originally was that we wanted to stop interference. The result was that every company is now illegal whether they follow that law in spirit or not because they don't have the stamp of approval saying what we already know, they complied. Taking that required stamp away completes the original intent without having to include the word "illegal" in everything we do. Frankly I'm tired of unknowingly breaking laws just because I walked down the street the wrong way but there was a "LAW" forbidding it because of some special interest when I did no one any harm taking that walk. You are a special interest who uses laws to protect your turf, it's not a bad thing, that seems to be the way lawyers want it to go and the FCC is lawyers. Just don't disrespect the original way Americans did business, let the best man win. How do you drag me into these Patrick, I can see us in a bar debating relativism until the bar closes, you don't have to even pay the tab because in the end I will still use Engenius bridges and unapproved RUAntenna's because they meet the spirit of the law. Just like our illegal farm workers when the big guys won't step up to the WISP's need to compete with cable's free installs we can't justify someone trying to get our business by passing laws not competing on price. But now we're into philosophy so from here out we should debate this off-list. Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As so
[WISPA] So Let's DO something.
Fellow WISPAs I've been reading these threads here with some great interest, and as the "new kid" on the block (Well at 53, maybe "the new geezer" might be more correct ... ) maybe I've not yet earned the right to sound off, but what the heck. I am deeply concerned that a few (but likely growing number of) "bad apples"COULD in fact destroy (or seriously cripple) this industry by inciting a regulatory backlash. I'm making a substantial personal investment of a fraction of my Life in this business and I want to see it succeed. I've never done shoddy work for an employer or client over the years, and am not going to start now. The question is, what can we do to get a handle on this business? How do we keep Scofflaws and Boneheads from robbing US and our Customers, of this valuable product? Let's face it, the FCC Could, with the stroke of a Pen, put us all OUT of BUSINESS. I THINK I understand a strategy to fix this, but it will take a little time to explain and some time to implement. I MUST Preface this further by saying clearly: I am the last person in the world to want more bureaucracy, paperwork, regulation or government interference. I suspect that most of us in this business have that in common or we'd be working for someone else, rather than slugging it out on our own. Many of you reading the following may at first blush find it contradictory to my position, but I urge you to look it ALL thoroughly before reacting. I Believe the proposal can accomplish MUCH and for a nominal effort on our parts. I will assume facts not all in evidence (from my own knowledge) but . 1) I THINK I'm safe to say that WISPA is the largest and most cohesive body of Professional WISP operators in the US, maybe the world. As such, WISPA's formal opinion SHOULD have some sway with Regulators and Legislators. IF that is true, then we represent a large percentage of a Group of Professionals that provide a valuable service to our communities, for a reasonable compensation. 2) We do this work utilizing "public airwaves" and as such are subject to rules regarding the use of the public resource. We are in fact no less a business than any other, and like broadcaster, and others that earn their living exploiting "public resources," We MUST act responsibly. We however, have no police authority, nor do I suspect we really want any. But we do have a reasonable expectation that those with authority to police the spectrum will do their jobs with the professionalism we EXPECT from any law-enforcement body. 3) The Federal Government has acknowledged that WISPs ARE real communications firms, not a bunch of half-baked hobbyists. The fact of the FCC Activity Reporting Form 477 suggests, we are acknowledged as communications service providers and as such have role in our communities as professionals providing a valuable service. As the CALEA Act suggests, We ARE in fact a communications mechanism that may from time to time need to be "monitored" for legitimate law enforcement purposes. 4) As Serious Professionals, we are all in dire need of greater access to limited resources, and to that end we are pleading with the FCC and Legislators to make more spectrum available especially the so-called "white spaces." OK - so now we know who WE are; will the crackpot-outlaw-troublemaker crowd be Filing Form 477s, or Complying with CALEA? (Or even filing taxes on their revenue?) I tend to doubt it, don't you? I THINK it is time for US to Give the Feds the tool they really need to help. And I think we should offer it as a deal-sweetener to the White Space Initiative. We may be needing to ask for legislation to give the proposal teeth, or perhaps Rule Making may suffice. (I'm not a laywer, nor do I play one on television ) One thing I know about politics is this: It's easier to get something if you're willing to GIVE something too. * I A Universal WISP Registry. A PLUBLICLY Accessible Database, similar to the FCC's Antenna Structure Registration Database (AWR) only maybe better and more easily searchable. Registration in the Database as an Active WISP (A Person or Firm engaging in Wireless Internet Service for profit or Non-Profit Community Organizations) would be COMPULSOY. The Datebase would include, (but not be limited to) WISP Operator Name, Location and Contact information, Access Point Geo-Codes and Operating Frequencies (and Channels where applicable) TransmitterType Approval Numbers, and EIRP. ALL Commercial WISPs would be required BY LAW (or new FCC Rule Making) to register and maintain the database accuracy of the database at least on an annual basis. preferably more frequently. Failure to comply with this requirement would be subject to VERY HIGH fine. Database Compliance should be a criteria for WISPA Membership. You'll notice that I'm not suggesting Licensing Fees or a paperwork process, or Exclusive Spectrum Us
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Inline Patrick Leary wrote: How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. I am rural. What is illegal produce? If I grew it in my backyard, is it illegal? Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? No. What we want it the REMOVAL of worthless rules for the sake of rules. The removal of protecionist regulations that favor large established companies at the expense of the small fry. Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. That is the cost of doing business, for you. Not my problem. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, Get real. Private property. or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. Again, private property. Zoning laws are a completely different subject and you know it. But, since you asked, if the tower, even if it falls, will remain on his/her property, no one else should be able to say anything about it. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. There is a difference between placing someone else life at risk with an unsafe vehicle on the public road and using an uncertified radio transmitter that otherwise complies with the requirements. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. I can't and don't speak for Forbes. The requirements, as now set, make the innovation that originally helped create this industry nearly impossible to do for the small guys. I can't help but believe that this is what the big guys want. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This remind
RE: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
that was at 10mhz channels. when I went to 20mhz, I was able to squeeze 22 mbps on a 36 meg connect rate, but that's too much freq usage... Seems to work ok - just need to start separating thse things. Might be interesting to find an enclosure that had two compartments - one on each side and separated, etc. Does such a beast exist ? R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik What channel size for 18 mbps? Scriv Rick Smith wrote: >I'll give you the time tested answer to that question. > >It depends. > >:) > >I've got 3 AP's up now, starting to have SOME luck, mostly LOS, a >couple NLOS here but no "leaf" experience yet as the trees are naked... > >On one NLOS shot in town, around corner 3/4 mile away, I can transfer >18mbps through the mikrotik bandwidth tester... > >I'm finding a lot of trouble installing 2.4 AND 900mhz in the same >boxes as repeaters...I think due to the fact that the SR9 card is just >up/down converted 2.4... Separate boxes work great, same enclosure it >sucks. > >R > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Matt >Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik > > > >>We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently >>installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available >>for INDOOR CPE >> >> > >No answer for you there but was just wandering how the Mikrotik 900 AP >was working? Been using Canopy 900 due to its interference rejection, >frequency reuse and easy integrated install. Have just wandered how >much more throughput Mikrotik can do and what kind of range? > >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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
We stopped putting more than 1 radio card in the same box quite a while back. Even when the cards are on widely separated bands, there seems to be some mutual noise generation Our stuff all goes in grounded, metal enclosures now. As a side benefit, our level of static induced failures has dropped quite a bit as well... Rick Smith wrote: I'll give you the time tested answer to that question. It depends. :) I've got 3 AP's up now, starting to have SOME luck, mostly LOS, a couple NLOS here but no "leaf" experience yet as the trees are naked... On one NLOS shot in town, around corner 3/4 mile away, I can transfer 18mbps through the mikrotik bandwidth tester... I'm finding a lot of trouble installing 2.4 AND 900mhz in the same boxes as repeaters...I think due to the fact that the SR9 card is just up/down converted 2.4... Separate boxes work great, same enclosure it sucks. R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available for INDOOR CPE No answer for you there but was just wandering how the Mikrotik 900 AP was working? Been using Canopy 900 due to its interference rejection, frequency reuse and easy integrated install. Have just wandered how much more throughput Mikrotik can do and what kind of range? Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
What channel size for 18 mbps? Scriv Rick Smith wrote: I'll give you the time tested answer to that question. It depends. :) I've got 3 AP's up now, starting to have SOME luck, mostly LOS, a couple NLOS here but no "leaf" experience yet as the trees are naked... On one NLOS shot in town, around corner 3/4 mile away, I can transfer 18mbps through the mikrotik bandwidth tester... I'm finding a lot of trouble installing 2.4 AND 900mhz in the same boxes as repeaters...I think due to the fact that the SR9 card is just up/down converted 2.4... Separate boxes work great, same enclosure it sucks. R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available for INDOOR CPE No answer for you there but was just wandering how the Mikrotik 900 AP was working? Been using Canopy 900 due to its interference rejection, frequency reuse and easy integrated install. Have just wandered how much more throughput Mikrotik can do and what kind of range? 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] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. 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 Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to say they can't. It is to say this is the way things work in the real world. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe
RE: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
I'll give you the time tested answer to that question. It depends. :) I've got 3 AP's up now, starting to have SOME luck, mostly LOS, a couple NLOS here but no "leaf" experience yet as the trees are naked... On one NLOS shot in town, around corner 3/4 mile away, I can transfer 18mbps through the mikrotik bandwidth tester... I'm finding a lot of trouble installing 2.4 AND 900mhz in the same boxes as repeaters...I think due to the fact that the SR9 card is just up/down converted 2.4... Separate boxes work great, same enclosure it sucks. R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik > We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently > installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available > for INDOOR CPE No answer for you there but was just wandering how the Mikrotik 900 AP was working? Been using Canopy 900 due to its interference rejection, frequency reuse and easy integrated install. Have just wandered how much more throughput Mikrotik can do and what kind of range? 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] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available for INDOOR CPE No answer for you there but was just wandering how the Mikrotik 900 AP was working? Been using Canopy 900 due to its interference rejection, frequency reuse and easy integrated install. Have just wandered how much more throughput Mikrotik can do and what kind of range? 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] Routers
Those _are_ Netgear routers. The thread was looking for consumer grade routers. All sub hundred dollar wireless routers are going to lose their way periodically and require power cycling. This particular router has Atheros chipset and it's priced for throw away so you don't have to waste more on RMA than the router is worth in the first place. Matt wrote: We use WAR boards but if it's resi wireless LAN needed, these work fine http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. They have Atheros chipset and are $22 delivered. Throw them away when they die. All the consumer grade stuff Those look like Netgear routers. We run PPPoE and have always had trouble with Netgear routers requiring a reboot to reconnect if you do something stupid like update the firmware on the Mikrotik PPPoE server in the middle of the night. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Indoor CPE for 900 mhz microtik
Hello Everyone We have been a waverider shop for a couple of years but have recently installed a microtik 900 mhz AP and was wondering what is available for INDOOR CPE equipment.We would sure appreciate any input as to what is available.Outdoors we are using rootenna enclosures with routerboard 532s.These work well but are large and bulky.Does anyone have a better solution for the outdoor setup? Thanksfor your help Ray Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to say they can't. It is to say this is the way things work in the real world. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players
Brian: Amateur Radio processes was one of the mental models I used in my proposal. You were right on in noting the similarities. Thanks, Steve (N8GNJ) On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 09:55 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Ask not what WISPA can do for you
I have seen many excellent ideas posed lately about ways in which WISPA can do this or WISPA can do that for the industry. I am sure WISPA will become the place where all of these things become a reality in the future. For now we have a more immediate need. People need to stop telling us what we ought to be doing and start paying their dues. If you are paying your dues then you need to be telling others to pay their dues. WISPA has spent the best part of our time on projects we feel are critical to the future of this industry. I am not downplaying the importance of some of the other ideas posed. I just know we cannot do it all without more people, more money and more positive focus and direction. Right now WISPA is made up of the following membership: Principle Members (WISP Operators)= 64 Associate Members = 5 Vendor Member = 8 We have over 700 people using our list servers so people know we are here and there is interest. They just won't pay their dues. That means that a mere 74 organizations out of thousands are paying their dues. That is reprehensible. How can any of us believe that this organization can do more than we are already for our industry when 74 out of maybe 6000 join? Let me be clear about this. Before we start saying these guys cannot join or we need to shut these guys down or whatever we better start getting more representation here. Maybe when we have more than 2% of our industry represented in our organization then we can start setting the bar a little higher. For now we better start looking at ways we can all help prop this organization up before it falls flat on its backhaul. If you are reading this and you are not a dues paying member of WISPA then get over to http://signup.wispa.org right now and become a member. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to say they can't. It is to say this is the way things work in the real world. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers; OpenWRT
What I would like to know is what is the cheapest router that is supported by OpenWRT? http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware Matt Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line of router out there for home and small business. We have used linksys and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best? I am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer their lack of quality. Your feedback is very welcome. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers
We use WAR boards but if it's resi wireless LAN needed, these work fine http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. They have Atheros chipset and are $22 delivered. Throw them away when they die. All the consumer grade stuff Those look like Netgear routers. We run PPPoE and have always had trouble with Netgear routers requiring a reboot to reconnect if you do something stupid like update the firmware on the Mikrotik PPPoE server in the middle of the night. 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] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac Dearman wrote: That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are "surely" operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Question I have is "outside" part-15 rules. At what point do we say, clean up your act? Are we saying using kit built systems?, uncertified gear?, or big honking omni's with big honking amps to make they get though some nlos stuff? Not looking to argue, just to get your opinion clear. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac, There are many things the amateur radio community does that an organization like WISPA could use as an organization for examples on how to accomplish tasks. Frequency coordination and this voluntary policing of the airwaves are two situations that come to mind. Emergency communications and disaster recovery efforts are another. For those of you might not understand all the function the ham radio community can do, a good site to look at is www.arrl.org. A wealth of information here. For those on the list who are already hams, pardon the use of the bandwidth. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are "surely" operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the
Re: [WISPA] Routers
Follow the link I pasted http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. Anthony R. Mattke wrote: Where are you finding those boards for $22 a piece? -Tony cw wrote: We use WAR boards but if it's resi wireless LAN needed, these work fine http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. They have Atheros chipset and are $22 delivered. Throw them away when they die. All the consumer grade stuff lasts the same length of time. Ross Cornett wrote: Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line of router out there for home and small business. We have used linksys and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best? I am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer their lack of quality. Your feedback is very welcome. Ross Cornett VP 217 342 6201 ex 7 HofNet Communications, Inc. www.HofNet-Communications.com HofNet-Communications.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] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are "surely" operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of "it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?!" I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: > Marty, > > That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with > what you > said and most of what Patrick "generally" has
Re: [WISPA] Automated Wi-FI Attacks
Justin, Scary stuff... Thanks for the post. jack Justin Wilson wrote: Found on Slashdot: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=19 "ZDNet has a story about the public launch of Immunity's Silica, a portable hacking device that can search for and join 802.11 (Wi-Fi) access points, scan other connections for open ports, and automatically launch code execution exploits from a built-in exploit platform From the Article: At startup, Silica offers the user the option to scan for available open Wi-Fi networks. Once a network is found, the device connects (much like a laptop at Starbucks) and asks the user if it should simply scan for vulnerable/open ports or launch actual exploits from CANVAS. Whenever CANVAS is updated with new exploits ‹ typically once a month ‹ Silica automatically gets an update to ensure all the newest attack code is available for mobile pen testing. Another reason customers need to have secured wireless networks at their homes. Justin -- "Life is unfair, but root password Helps" --- Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CCNA - A+ - CCNT - TAT - ACSA - COMTRAIN MTIN.NET Wireless - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing AOLIM: j2sw WEB: http://www.mtin.net Phone: 765.762.2851 -- 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] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Add a step before this- just contact the offender first, air your concern, try to work it out locally. Less trouble/intervention/attention for all parties involved. I still believe most people are decent. No need to call the dogs unless you are forced to. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of "it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?!" I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: > Marty, > > That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with > what you > said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no > dig > either Patrick) hehehe > > I was just picking on my brother Leary!! > > As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in > any other > arena in the world. If there are limits placed ther
RE: [WISPA] MT hotspot
That is almost perfectly correct, but you have to set up the DHCP server in MT for the Hotspot gateway/clients. Also choose which interface you would want the HotSpot to run from. MAC authentication is easy and very effective! You can shape the traffic as well within the Hotspot. Its just great stuff IMHO Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT hotspot I could be way off base here. I dont run a hotspot with MT at this time but I have played with it. You might want to try http://forums.mikrotik.com/ for help. If i remember correctly when you create a hotspot server it creates a DHCP server for this "virtual interface" and thus it is a independent DHCP server for that hotspot. Then you could have the MT handle the IP leases. Also I believe that if you use MAC authentication for the hotspot what you are trying would work. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP > for a single location for a free hotspot. :( > > Travis > > > Eric Muehleisen wrote: >> What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of >> the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like >> that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active >> hotspot users. >> >> -Eric >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access >>> points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc. >>> >>> Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear >>> with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each >>> real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router. >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >> -- 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] Automated Wi-FI Attacks
Found on Slashdot: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=19 "ZDNet has a story about the public launch of Immunity's Silica, a portable hacking device that can search for and join 802.11 (Wi-Fi) access points, scan other connections for open ports, and automatically launch code execution exploits from a built-in exploit platform >From the Article: At startup, Silica offers the user the option to scan for available open Wi-Fi networks. Once a network is found, the device connects (much like a laptop at Starbucks) and asks the user if it should simply scan for vulnerable/open ports or launch actual exploits from CANVAS. Whenever CANVAS is updated with new exploits typically once a month Silica automatically gets an update to ensure all the newest attack code is available for mobile pen testing. Another reason customers need to have secured wireless networks at their homes. Justin -- "Life is unfair, but root password Helps" --- Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CCNA - A+ - CCNT - TAT - ACSA - COMTRAIN MTIN.NET Wireless - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing AOLIM: j2sw WEB: http://www.mtin.net Phone: 765.762.2851 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of "it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?!" I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: > Marty, > > That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with > what you > said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no > dig > either Patrick) hehehe > > I was just picking on my brother Leary!! > > As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in > any other > arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be > those > who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting > themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's > in every > avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it > inevitable! > > It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but > that is > just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in > accordance > to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our > systems ar
[WISPA] - Can anyone tell me how many are we?
Gang, I've heard various numbers, but I'd like to put a finer point on it. How many WISPA members are there? How many independent WISPs are there? Thanks, Dave Brenton General Manager Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm) Dover TN (931) 232-0914 office (931) 627-1142 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Marty, I believe that this list of 'open to the public,' and therefore users are not subject to the code of ethics that a member agrees to when they join. The paid members have access to a private discussion group with added benefits over and above the public list. The private list is also where the official WISPA positions are decided. I would also hope that any 'paid member' would hold themselves to a higher standard than perhaps the 'rouge' list user. I think that the official WISPA position has always promoted compliance with the law and regulations. However, I have also learned a lot from those that may 'bend or break' the rules too. Ultimately, it is up to me to weigh the risk/return proposition for my company. If you are a paid member; thanks and congratulations. If not, please consider joining and raise the bar for WISPA as a Professional organization. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:26 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. It's simple Marlon- WISPA can affect this crowd- If WISPA demands all members be 100% legal operators or NO MEMBERSHIP allowed that would send a powerful message to the FCC and the WISP community. >From the code of ethics- ARTICLE II We will conduct ourselves in such a manner as to bring credit to our industry and enhance its reputation. ARTICLE III We will publicize our services in a professional manner upholding the dignity of our profession. We will avoid all conduct, practices and promotion likely to discredit or do injury to our field of endeavor ARTICLE IV We will strive to broaden public understanding and enhance public regard and confidence in our Industry Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Why? Because our industry is getting hammered at the FCC by the licensed operators. They are telling the world that UL operators are running wild and giving them (us) more UL spectrum will result in the exact same issues in the new spectrum. The FCC does not intend to hire hundreds of inspectors to keep our industry honest and legal. They expect the industry (us, you and me) to police ourselves and to create the industry specifics programs around making that happen. If WISPA is not up to the task then someone else needs to do it. Once Clearwire and Sprint /Nextel show up in your area with licensed broadband you will really feel the heat. There are LOTS of Clearwire wanna be's at the FCC RIGHT NOW begging for licensed spectrum. These are guys who have VC money- $20-30M on average. Not only do they have the cash to be RELEVANT they often have the experience in dealing with the FCC. (many have inside connections or used to work at the FCC. If they make it to your area and have licensed spectrum they will kill you. How will you compete against their power levels and lower prices without additional spectrum? Can you afford to join them at the FCC auctions or spectrum trading pits? I know we all provide better support, we are local guys etc etc etc. We can all tell ourselves that as the licensed operators surround us and take our customers with better spectrum and lower price points. Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Marlon, Correct me if I am wrong, wasn't it you that was looking for an amp for a 15 mile link of an omni the other day? Fact is it's none of our business here at wispa what our members use for equipment. None what so ever. WISPA is not an enforcement group. We are a trade association. Marty, why is it that you want to get involved with what other people use? George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think > we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a > couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less > than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all > of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish > that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up > the official flag pole. > > Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't > helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some > day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, > and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers > working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT > week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the > FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going > I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is > being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the > chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the > FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read > the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the > form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet > with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. > > WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: > http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 > > As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make > sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue > you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to > get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our > industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have > technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. > > To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent > our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL > companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also > silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are > THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or > 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes > more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to > be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. > Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. > > I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution.
[WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated "WISP Spectrum" become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as "professionals" you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting "more of the same bad behavior"? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA "bad players" committee 4) WISPA "bad players committee" convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The "bad players committee" only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the "bad players committee" agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the "bad player" is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the "bad players committee" creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of "suspected illegal WISP operations" that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide "cover". It's still small-scale enough for the "we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources" nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to "tick off the FCC" thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of "it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?!" I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in every avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it inevitable! It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but that is just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in accordance to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our systems are not certified by Patrick's definition, but as long as we attempt to build one that "could be" certified by matching the correct antennas with the correct radios, maintain legal limits and good judgment through manufacturers papers - we will all be OK. I have a WISP in my area that is running two towers with 2 watt Hyperlink amps at the 12db Omni's. Believe me - I know about jack ass operators and detest that type of operator. It really shows ignorance to pull such a stunt, but these types of operators know absolutely nothing anyway. Once again - what we are doing and tolerating is nothing new - - these type folks are everywhere in everything and every business
Re: [WISPA] MT hotspot
I could be way off base here. I dont run a hotspot with MT at this time but I have played with it. You might want to try http://forums.mikrotik.com/ for help. If i remember correctly when you create a hotspot server it creates a DHCP server for this "virtual interface" and thus it is a independent DHCP server for that hotspot. Then you could have the MT handle the IP leases. Also I believe that if you use MAC authentication for the hotspot what you are trying would work. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP for a single location for a free hotspot. :( Travis Eric Muehleisen wrote: What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active hotspot users. -Eric Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc. Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router. Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers
That is what I was looking for. We all serve the same interest and that is customer satisfaction. I did learn a great deal from you all providing me your feedback. Our scenario has been been using bulk ordered refurbs. We used to be all Linksys until we started seeing a high failure rate. Power in this area is seems to be poor. intermittent flickers cause a router to loose its config or completely slam it. The customer never tells us it was due to power until we ask a few simple questions. Then we realize we are being misinformed. Moved to the netgears to see what they could do and started out with refurbs and now I believe we are paying for htat decision. I will once again consider the linkys and I will surely look into the belkin. I have also been informed that motorola was putting out a good router, the BR700 but they are discontinued. So, thank you to all that have provided me this feedback. Ross Cornett VP 217 342 6201 ex 7 HofNet Communications, Inc. www.HofNet-Communications.com HofNet-Communications.com - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers Who has a lifetime warranty? KyWiFi LLC wrote: Yes, I'm serious. Lots of companies offer a lifetime warranty. If they have a good product, they should stand behind it. If their product is junk, then... Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 -- 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: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Marlon, Correct me if I am wrong, wasn't it you that was looking for an amp for a 15 mile link of an omni the other day? Fact is it's none of our business here at wispa what our members use for equipment. None what so ever. WISPA is not an enforcement group. We are a trade association. Marty, why is it that you want to get involved with what other people use? George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put in in it's place. Now I'm not so sure. Cell phones are where it's at today. I think that as soon as someone builds a pbx that will use the cell phone as a person's extension line and make it easy to put people on hold, transfer calls etc., the desk phone will go by by. There's not much that can be done with the average extension phone that can't be done with a cell phone, and then some. I am actually much more worried about some form of cell phone broadband than I am about fiber to the home today. I think the traditional phone company is going to end up going the way of the buggy maker. Sure they had a good run for a long time. But people's priorities and habits are clearly changing. I think we're actually likely to see the broadband industry, especially the wireless one, take over all communications services in the next couple of decades. The genie is out of the bottle. People love their laptops (well, everything but those worthless mouse pads and keyboards) and will take them everywhere. The need for spectrum is clear and the demand is JUST really gaining ground. The WISP industry is tracking nicely with the dialup industry from 1995 or 1997 as near as I can tell. We're probably near our peak number or operators and at a fraction of our peak customer bases. I think in another 3 years our growth will level off quite a bit. At least from a current technology operator's point of view. The pressure on the regulators and congress to give use the tools needed to service the masses with broadband anywhere they go is ramping up. Look at the massive amounts of time, money and energy that is being poured into muni networks right now. Those will eventually fail due to the way government naturally operates. But in the long run the demand for the ser
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
It's simple Marlon- WISPA can affect this crowd- If WISPA demands all members be 100% legal operators or NO MEMBERSHIP allowed that would send a powerful message to the FCC and the WISP community. >From the code of ethics- ARTICLE II We will conduct ourselves in such a manner as to bring credit to our industry and enhance its reputation. ARTICLE III We will publicize our services in a professional manner upholding the dignity of our profession. We will avoid all conduct, practices and promotion likely to discredit or do injury to our field of endeavor ARTICLE IV We will strive to broaden public understanding and enhance public regard and confidence in our Industry Marty ___ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-554-6620 www.roadstarinternet.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put in in it's place. Now I'm not so sure. Cell phones are where it's at today. I think that as soon as someone builds a pbx that will use the cell phone as a person's extension line and make it easy to put people on hold, transfer calls etc., the desk phone will go by by. There's not much that can be done with the average extension phone that can't be done with a cell phone, and then some. I am actually much more worried about some form of cell phone broadband than I am about fiber to the home today. I think the traditional phone company is going to end up going the way of the buggy maker. Sure they had a good run for a long time. But people's priorities and habits are clearly changing. I think we're actually likely to see the broadband industry, especially the wireless one, take over all communications services in the next couple of decades. The genie is out of the bottle. People love their laptops (well, everything but those worthless mouse pads and keyboards) and will take them everywhere. The need for spectrum is clear and the demand is JUST really gaining ground. The WISP industry is tracking nice
[WISPA] yahoo Maps API ?
Someone a bit back shared some code with a list, and I can't for the life of me find where I put it, developed some on top of it, and came up with something web based that was pretty cool. hehe. I've got like 7 machines here that I could've picked, and it was a tiny file... doh! If had something to do with going to the yahoo developer's network, getting an ID, and converting address info into Lat/Long. Thanks R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
What do you want to bet they put it in a spot that's almost impossible to weather seal? What are the odds that they'll post a picture or 3 of a prototype here on this list and ask for OUR feedback before they release the product. Far too vendors fail to take advantage of our skills marlon - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:30 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors If that's true, I'm glad to see that they have decided to use a more appropriate connector type. Ralph _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors Hi, I can tell you that Trango is going to an N connector on their new series of radios (6-12 months out). However, they are not going to change anything with the existing radios. Travis Microserv -- 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: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the official flag pole. Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process). They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband group. WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3 As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers, marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here. To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly. They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term. I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put in in it's place. Now I'm not so sure. Cell phones are where it's at today. I think that as soon as someone builds a pbx that will use the cell phone as a person's extension line and make it easy to put people on hold, transfer calls etc., the desk phone will go by by. There's not much that can be done with the average extension phone that can't be done with a cell phone, and then some. I am actually much more worried about some form of cell phone broadband than I am about fiber to the home today. I think the traditional phone company is going to end up going the way of the buggy maker. Sure they had a good run for a long time. But people's priorities and habits are clearly changing. I think we're actually likely to see the broadband industry, especially the wireless one, take over all communications services in the next couple of decades. The genie is out of the bottle. People love their laptops (well, everything but those worthless mouse pads and keyboards) and will take them everywhere. The need for spectrum is clear and the demand is JUST really gaining ground. The WISP industry is tracking nicely with the dialup industry from 1995 or 1997 as near as I can tell. We're probably near our peak number or operators and at a fraction of our peak customer bases. I think in another 3 years our growth will level off quite a bit. At least from a current technology operator's point of view. The pressure on the regulators and congress to give use the tools needed to service the masses with broadband anywhere they go is ramping up. Look at the massive amounts of time, money and energy that is being poured into muni networks right now. Those will eventually fail due to the way government naturally operates. But in the long run the demand for the services will not fail. It used to be that the cities were the telco's and power companies. A few of those old models survive but most failed and private industry moved into the gap. We need to keep the pressure on our rogue operators. We need to keep the pressure on our vendors that don't follow or teach to the rules. And we need government to either pass rules that accept today's reality or en
RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Marty, That was not a "dig" :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick "generally" has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in every avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it inevitable! It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but that is just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in accordance to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our systems are not certified by Patrick's definition, but as long as we attempt to build one that "could be" certified by matching the correct antennas with the correct radios, maintain legal limits and good judgment through manufacturers papers - we will all be OK. I have a WISP in my area that is running two towers with 2 watt Hyperlink amps at the 12db Omni's. Believe me - I know about jack ass operators and detest that type of operator. It really shows ignorance to pull such a stunt, but these types of operators know absolutely nothing anyway. Once again - what we are doing and tolerating is nothing new - - these type folks are everywhere in everything and every business in life - - just look around! Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Give me a break. I just joined WISPA in the past 60 days with intentions of HELPING THE INDUSTRY. In the 60 days I have been on this list I have seen all kinds of BS- Political grandstanding, rudeness and generally unprofessional behavior. The most recent discussions about operating illegally have been just as disturbing. I want to know if WISPA intends to "step up" to the plate and take a position against all of this INCLUDING the open and seemingly arrogant flaunting of the rules that have been put in place by the FCC. If you had the authority to grant new unlicensed spectrum to the WISP represented on this list would you feel confident they will follow the rules? Don't you think the licensed camps are going to eat this up? MY 2 cents- we are in for the battle of our lives with regards to spectrum and we are LOOSING. In fact, if not for the muni crowd, we would have little hope of getting any of the TV/whitespace. Someone else mentioned this was similar to the CB radio story... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:29 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Oh my lord Marty! I think you are trying to get Patrick back in high gear on his soap box!! :-) SHAME SHAME!! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified" FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all yourself and stay legal... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control" that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting po
[WISPA] Another expert heard from.
All, I ran across this article and found it quite amusing. As quoted from the article; "Newtowne Court public housing, chosen for its proximity to public buildings and its high percentage of school-age children, is already equipped with 20 to 30 antennae for WiFi, said Hart. Hart said the project is being stalled because the 20 to 30 antennae aren’t strong enough. The next step for the city is to implement so-called WiMax, a stronger signal that will someday provide mobile wireless connectivity without a base station antenna. “The technology today doesn’t penetrate walls very well; leaves can even get in its way because it’s a radio signal,” said Hart. “Right behind this technology is WiMax. Nobody’s selling that yet but it’s so close to taking over WiFi, it’s holding up a lot of projects.” " Link to full article below; http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/homepage/8998949105128439806 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] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
Yeah, I hate trying to seal connectors that have such a large step up in cable size. It's hard to get the tape to set up right. I have had a LOT better luck with those little connectors by only buying 18" jumpers. I also have moved to using rg 58u instead of lmr 240 or something like that. The rg cable is about the same loss (especially only 18" of it) and is MUCH more flexible. Oh yeah, don't get the ones with the right angle connectors either :-). marlon - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:03 AM Subject: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors Does anyone else have an issue with the tiny little SMA connector that Trango and some others use for antenna connections? I have seen several failures where the mating connector on the antenna feed line self destructs due to leverage caused by the cable. Nothing kills an installation budget quite as bad as having to do another tower climb or even a parts run due to something as silly as this! And if you have to go back because of a later failure at this point it is even worse! Good RF sense tells you to use as large of a cable as practical for less loss and for compensation for connector loss, but when using LMR400 (and I have even seen one WISP use LMR600) for a jumper it is very unstable. I feel that in order to eliminate this very real single point of failure, this manufacturer needs to redesign that area. I don't want to hear that because Trango has either/or dual polarity, it provides built in backup redundancy- unless you do every installation with a dual pol antenna and have smart enough people to know to switch pol when the cheesy little connector fails. -- 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] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
If that's true, I'm glad to see that they have decided to use a more appropriate connector type. Ralph _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors Hi, I can tell you that Trango is going to an N connector on their new series of radios (6-12 months out). However, they are not going to change anything with the existing radios. Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
Hi, I can tell you that Trango is going to an N connector on their new series of radios (6-12 months out). However, they are not going to change anything with the existing radios. Travis Microserv Ralph wrote: Hi Travis- I understand (and agree with) your point- But Sometimes the installation calls for a longer one. I have seen 4-10 ft ones for various reasons. Sometimes the specification for the job calls for that size cable because the owner has it in his head that there may be .025 dB less of loss. Mind you- I am NOT saying not to use a smallish cable, I'm just about the flimsiness of the connector Trango chose. SMAs weren't really designed for use on flexible cables anyway. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors Ralph, When you are talking a 12" or 18" pigtail, using LMR-195 vs. LMR-400 or even LMR-600 there is going to be less than .5db difference. Why would you need such a large cable for just a small jumper cable? Travis Microserv Ralph wrote: Does anyone else have an issue with the tiny little SMA connector that Trango and some others use for antenna connections? I have seen several failures where the mating connector on the antenna feed line self destructs due to leverage caused by the cable. Nothing kills an installation budget quite as bad as having to do another tower climb or even a parts run due to something as silly as this! And if you have to go back because of a later failure at this point it is even worse! Good RF sense tells you to use as large of a cable as practical for less loss and for compensation for connector loss, but when using LMR400 (and I have even seen one WISP use LMR600) for a jumper it is very unstable. I feel that in order to eliminate this very real single point of failure, this manufacturer needs to redesign that area. I don't want to hear that because Trango has either/or dual polarity, it provides built in backup redundancy- unless you do every installation with a dual pol antenna and have smart enough people to know to switch pol when the cheesy little connector fails. -- 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] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
Hi Travis- I understand (and agree with) your point- But Sometimes the installation calls for a longer one. I have seen 4-10 ft ones for various reasons. Sometimes the specification for the job calls for that size cable because the owner has it in his head that there may be .025 dB less of loss. Mind you- I am NOT saying not to use a smallish cable, I'm just about the flimsiness of the connector Trango chose. SMAs weren't really designed for use on flexible cables anyway. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors Ralph, When you are talking a 12" or 18" pigtail, using LMR-195 vs. LMR-400 or even LMR-600 there is going to be less than .5db difference. Why would you need such a large cable for just a small jumper cable? Travis Microserv Ralph wrote: > Does anyone else have an issue with the tiny little SMA connector that > Trango and some others use for antenna connections? > I have seen several failures where the mating connector on the antenna > feed line self destructs due to leverage caused by the cable. Nothing > kills an installation budget quite as bad as having to do another > tower climb or even a parts run due to something as silly as this! And > if you have to go back because of a later failure at this point it is even worse! > > Good RF sense tells you to use as large of a cable as practical for > less loss and for compensation for connector loss, but when using > LMR400 (and I have even seen one WISP use LMR600) for a jumper it is very unstable. > > I feel that in order to eliminate this very real single point of > failure, this manufacturer needs to redesign that area. > > I don't want to hear that because Trango has either/or dual polarity, > it provides built in backup redundancy- unless you do every > installation with a dual pol antenna and have smart enough people to > know to switch pol when the cheesy little connector fails. > > > > -- 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: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
I have kept pretty silent watching all the grandstanding. But Marty brings up an excellent point. The licensed operators are using the flaunting of the laws as good reason to not give you any more UL spectrum. I have seen and heard this first hand. You guys can throw all the darts you want but I'm starting to see your boat go upstream and you're in a canoe without a paddle. Use the spectrum wisely and by the law. Those wisps that don't heed the law need to be taken behind the woodshed and publicly flogged by a group of their peers until they get with the program. Manufacturers should get the same treatment. This would be a good organization to start such a program. Rich had some excellent feedback on what other org's have done and if I were you guys I would ask for his involvement, build a program, and get moving. You are late to the game. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Give me a break. I just joined WISPA in the past 60 days with intentions of HELPING THE INDUSTRY. In the 60 days I have been on this list I have seen all kinds of BS- Political grandstanding, rudeness and generally unprofessional behavior. The most recent discussions about operating illegally have been just as disturbing. I want to know if WISPA intends to "step up" to the plate and take a position against all of this INCLUDING the open and seemingly arrogant flaunting of the rules that have been put in place by the FCC. If you had the authority to grant new unlicensed spectrum to the WISP represented on this list would you feel confident they will follow the rules? Don't you think the licensed camps are going to eat this up? MY 2 cents- we are in for the battle of our lives with regards to spectrum and we are LOOSING. In fact, if not for the muni crowd, we would have little hope of getting any of the TV/whitespace. Someone else mentioned this was similar to the CB radio story... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:29 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Oh my lord Marty! I think you are trying to get Patrick back in high gear on his soap box!! :-) SHAME SHAME!! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified" FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all yourself and stay legal... Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control" that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power levels to > cards that adapative modulate. > Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more clear > > A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and 22db at > 48-56mb. > My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db via an onboard > external amp beyond what the card is actually set to. > So if the card is set to 16db, it will have an output power of 24db in > theory. However, its not that simple because the output power will change > based on modulation. > Does STAROS drivers set the power as the constant power regardless of what > modulation? Or does it set the TOP power? Does the power on the card only > change if
Re: [WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
Ralph, When you are talking a 12" or 18" pigtail, using LMR-195 vs. LMR-400 or even LMR-600 there is going to be less than .5db difference. Why would you need such a large cable for just a small jumper cable? Travis Microserv Ralph wrote: Does anyone else have an issue with the tiny little SMA connector that Trango and some others use for antenna connections? I have seen several failures where the mating connector on the antenna feed line self destructs due to leverage caused by the cable. Nothing kills an installation budget quite as bad as having to do another tower climb or even a parts run due to something as silly as this! And if you have to go back because of a later failure at this point it is even worse! Good RF sense tells you to use as large of a cable as practical for less loss and for compensation for connector loss, but when using LMR400 (and I have even seen one WISP use LMR600) for a jumper it is very unstable. I feel that in order to eliminate this very real single point of failure, this manufacturer needs to redesign that area. I don't want to hear that because Trango has either/or dual polarity, it provides built in backup redundancy- unless you do every installation with a dual pol antenna and have smart enough people to know to switch pol when the cheesy little connector fails. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT hotspot
Hi, I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP for a single location for a free hotspot. :( Travis Eric Muehleisen wrote: What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active hotspot users. -Eric Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc. Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router. Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
AMEN to you, Marlon! The people (and there are some "big" names right on this list who are doing it) who are building their own stuff out of OEM boards are not operating under Part 15 properly and risk fines. The FCC can inspect ANY radio station, licensed or not, so all it takes is for them to get wind of the operation and have the proper kick in the pants to do the inspection. Bigger cities with field offices stand a bit better chance, of course. That said, I evaluated a Deliberant outdoor AP that was built very nicely. It contains an OEM board, but sports an FCC registration sticker right on the outside next to the N connector. As long as it is used with the proper antenna system, you are 100% legal- so why risk building stuff up out of whatever you can find. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. The company kinda has to do the certs as I understand it. There is data needed that we won't generally have. AND, it's fairly expensive. If WE certify their gear, will WE get paid for the certification? We, as wisps, just need to do a better job of demanding that people buy certified systems. Part of the reason that I don't use MT ap's is the certification issue. I *may* or may not use them if certified, but until they are certified I'll not likely even try. When most people have that attitude we'll see a lot of our favorite toys certified. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Marty Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. >I don't seem much discussions about integrators or wisps going to the > FCC to get these parts certified into a system. So, is it safe to safe > that most microtik installs are NOT certified and are therefore not > legal? > > Seems to me like this would be a big issue for us all to address?? > > Marty > > __ > > Marty Dougherty > > CEO > > Roadstar Internet Inc > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 703-623-4542 (Cell) > > 703-554-6620 (office) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:21 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. > >>do these all qualify as 'certified" >> FCC systems? > > Parts dont get certified, systems do. > They have the capabilty to be certified. > Depends if the integrator took the time and money to get them certified. > Depends if the WISP took the care to buy them from an integrator that > certified them. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marty Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:14 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. > > >> Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified" >> FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all >> yourself and stay legal... >> >> Marty >> >> >> >> __ >> >> Marty Dougherty >> >> CEO >> >> Roadstar Internet Inc >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> 703-623-4542 (Cell) >> >> 703-554-6620 (office) >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On >> Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. >> >> Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control" >> that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power >> using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by >> Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the >> rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by >> the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. >> >> The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier >> after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting >> that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. >> We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except >> that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >> On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power >> levels to >>> cards that adapative modulate. >>> Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more > clear >>> >>> A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and > 22db >> at >>> 48-56mb. >>> My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db v
[WISPA] Little installation gotchas. SMA Connectors
Does anyone else have an issue with the tiny little SMA connector that Trango and some others use for antenna connections? I have seen several failures where the mating connector on the antenna feed line self destructs due to leverage caused by the cable. Nothing kills an installation budget quite as bad as having to do another tower climb or even a parts run due to something as silly as this! And if you have to go back because of a later failure at this point it is even worse! Good RF sense tells you to use as large of a cable as practical for less loss and for compensation for connector loss, but when using LMR400 (and I have even seen one WISP use LMR600) for a jumper it is very unstable. I feel that in order to eliminate this very real single point of failure, this manufacturer needs to redesign that area. I don't want to hear that because Trango has either/or dual polarity, it provides built in backup redundancy- unless you do every installation with a dual pol antenna and have smart enough people to know to switch pol when the cheesy little connector fails. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers
Who has a lifetime warranty? KyWiFi LLC wrote: Yes, I'm serious. Lots of companies offer a lifetime warranty. If they have a good product, they should stand behind it. If their product is junk, then... Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Routers
Probably also disables the part 15 compliance as well, I'd bet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers Ross Cornett wrote: > We have used linksys and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. No matter what brand of router you're talking about, you'll find a number of people who say "wow, that's junk" and an equal number of people that say "wow, that's awesome." With that disclaimer out of the way, I've actually been quite happy with Linksys gear - as long as you buy the RIGHT Linksys gear. The ever-popular WRT54G router went down the tubes about a year and a half ago, for instance; we have some still in use after two or three years (the older ones) but I've also got about a dozen of the newer ones in the office that, frankly, I don't know what to do with. I won't give them to customers because I /like/ my customers, and I couldn't return them because they're not technically defective. The Linksys WRT54GL, though, is pure concentrated awesome in a plastic box. (Basically, after the massive public outcry, Linksys took the older 54G hardware, gave it a new part number, and added about five bucks to the wholesale price.) As a benefit, if you're inclined to tinker, there's lots of after-market firmware for the WRT54GL (and older WRT54G units) that add lots of nifty features. Heck, if you're so inclined, you can use one as an all-purpose CPE; there are two different client modes, where you can have it operate as a transparent bridge, or even as a wireless client/NATting router. Obviously this disables the "access point" functionality, but that's not necessarily a bad trade-off for a 802.11g client/router that can be had for about sixty bucks. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
