[WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] re: tower climbing (Travis Johnson)
Looks like the construction crew had a Homer moment. About the only thing I would suggest is showing the tower owner this photo and seeing if they can do anything. I would get you some re-bar hooks to help you slide across the beams. 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] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed
Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-) Tim Wolfe wrote: I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me. JohnnyO wrote: How far away are you from that location ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL! :-$ JohnnyO wrote: It's a great area sir ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of a PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??. JohnnyO wrote: Can Anyone service this location Link to a google map - Location http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1 to be serviced How about Saxton PA Regards, JohnnyO -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed
LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-) Tim Wolfe wrote: I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me. JohnnyO wrote: How far away are you from that location ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL! :-$ JohnnyO wrote: It's a great area sir ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of a PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??. JohnnyO wrote: Can Anyone service this location Link to a google map - Location http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1 to be serviced How about Saxton PA Regards, JohnnyO -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed
I have to admit not as often as I should. :-) JohnnyO wrote: LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-) Tim Wolfe wrote: I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me. JohnnyO wrote: How far away are you from that location ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL! :-$ JohnnyO wrote: It's a great area sir ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of a PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??. JohnnyO wrote: Can Anyone service this location Link to a google map - Location http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1 to be serviced How about Saxton PA Regards, JohnnyO -- 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: tower climbing (Travis Johnson)
Travis, I know you don't own that tower, but I would haul up a piece of cable and attach to the two legs so my cable grab would be affective. I have really come to appreciate the safety-climbs in my old age :-) I think everyone has named the problem correctly - - the tower supervisor was taking a nap at the time that section was hauled up. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:33 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] re: tower climbing (Travis Johnson) Looks like the construction crew had a Homer moment. About the only thing I would suggest is showing the tower owner this photo and seeing if they can do anything. I would get you some re-bar hooks to help you slide across the beams. 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA
While doing some research this morning, I came across the name of the CALEA Consultant for the DOJ, FBI, and DEA. )I'm now trying to get a phone or email). Any way, CALEA was brought up in the Brand-X case. Here's the summary of the brief FYI: Law Enforcement advanced the theory that Internet access service is a “telecommunications service,”or at least contains a “telecommunications service”that implicates the CALEA statute. CALEA could cover Internet access, Law Enforcement reasoned, without triggering the full burden of other regulatory mandates promulgated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Title II”) because the Commission could streamline those burdens using several regulatory tools, including forbearance, rule waivers, extensions of time, and self-certifications of compliance. Although cable operators are generally not subject to Title II, Law Enforcement remarked that CALEA already applies expressly to cable operators, as well as electric utilities and other utilities, to the extent those entities engage in telecommunications services. Law Enforcement also stated its belief that the Commission’s Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, which classifies Internet access as a pure information service, suffers from statutory interpretation problems and directly threatens CALEA. Moreover, Law Enforcement explained that CALEA’s importance to national security warrants special treatment of the statute in the Commission’s pending broadband Internet access proceedings. -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Strange Symptoms
I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? 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] Strange Symptoms
History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? R -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms
yeah, 100' away from the pop. across the street (dead side street, antenna way up above car level) This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the first on the repeater... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? R -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
Doug, I didn't notice anyone answering your question, though I might have missed it. Alvarion offers a version of the VL AU that is limited to 25 simultaneous associations. The Comnet price is under $2,000 iirc. It is license key upgradeable to the unlimited version if a particular sector grows beyond 25 users. It makes new sites/new sectors much more practical than it was when the only option was the unlimited version. For what it's worth, if you need an Alvarion Comnet distributor, I couldn't be more happy working with ACC/Wireless Connections (general email contact is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and recommend them highly. I hope that helps. In terms of your final question, you probably can't use this type of equipment on a live AM tower, but I don't see why a non-live tower would matter as long as you pay attention to grounding. However, I'm not an expert here...Mike Cowan, Bob Moldashell, etc. (amongst several others on this list) can give an authoritative answer if they notice the question. If they don't notice it, you might send them an email directly (if you don't have contact info, drop me a private note). Chuck PS: I've got no connection to any vendor other than as a customer. At 3:25 PM -0500 3/10/07, Doug Ratcliffe wrote: I'm sold. Anyone wanna buy me some? COMNET has nice pricing on CPE's, but are there any discounts on the AU's? There's so many parts it seems between the blade chassis and that, I don't even know what parts that I'd need to order. Also, I was concerned with the blade chassis that 200' of LMR400 would be too lossy to be useful - or does this have some kind of low frequency IF signalling that's used on the cable itself? Some equipment I've noticed uses a much lower frequency up the tower that even LMR175 could be used. Can I use this on an non-live, unipole, AM radio tower? Thanks -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 x108 Tell me not, in mournful numbers, Life is but an empty dream! For the soul is dead that slumbers, And things are not what they seem. A Psalm of Life, Longfellow -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken
Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how to call him? Forbes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ winmail.dat-- WISPA Wireless List:
RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken
Ken who? Kris Twomey? His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone number can be found on his website. http://www.lokt.net/ Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how to call him? Forbes _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
How did you get the thread then? Lonnie On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not on that list. sorry, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? Thanks. Patrick Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I found this thread interesting. Enjoy, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are modifications to the APs FCC legal? No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!) How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable? What would a SA show the channel width to be? Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will adjust automatically. What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without reflector, with? The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles. Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist in the network development of Canopy products? There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of opportunity for direct consultation. Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing? In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.) Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that allocated, how true are those figures? Is the allocation dynamic? Can you mix breeds of SM on the AP? VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees, but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a lower rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if you wish. All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector. Can an SM access the AP it's on for management? In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management access. Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic? Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set per subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears its limit. Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization? Doesn't this limit the radio's ability to co-locate? The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be either H or V pol mounted. The AUs can be mounted either way (by way of antenna choice). Why is the latency so high for the APs (5-7ms)? N/A, but looking in terms of a specific application, the delay with the optional WLP (wireless link prioritization feature) feature is stable at 4 or less ms. What is the maximum PPS per AP? Up to about 6 downstream and 48000 upstream. Are there any tools to prevent or reduce the impact from an end-user launching a DoS attack? Yes, the broadcast rate limiting feature was designed specifically because of this threat. How do the APs handle VoIP traffic? Is there anything that can assist this? Better, literally, than any other AP in unlicensed, with up 288 CONCURRENT VoIP calls per AP (we call them AUs) with a MOS of better than 4.0. With the WLP feature implemented, MOS is typically over 4.1 and many tests show over 4.4. (I have some great VoIP graphs). We can also run tons of concurrent data. The graphs show this too. What is a realistic number of concurrent VoIP sessions an AP can handle? VL is the only product that can literally and dynamically prioritize VoIP over the entire pipe and across the entire sector (versus just dedicating a partition that must be allocated whether used or not). At the same time, VL has a starvation
Re: [WISPA] tower climbing
How about bringing up the safety issue to the tower company, and asking them to install more foot pegs :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing Ya... that's what I was afraid of... I've done it twice, but both times I keep thinking there has to be a better way... Travis Microserv Bob Moldashel wrote: Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it. You just gotta get balls of steel and slide over. Down one cross member and up another. We do it all the time. BTW: Be careful... :-) -B- Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a new tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft without any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more difficult. I believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 legs. The issue is there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft level... then the pegs start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the top. Getting from one leg to another at the 80ft level is the challenge. As you can see from the picture, the gap from the top brace to the bottom brace is almost 10feet in the center (I am 6'1). http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to leg movements across the braces? Thanks, 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: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
Hi Peter, I'd like to see the powerpoints! Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] 608-588-8010 PO Box 668 Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. BTW, this from SS8's presentation at the VPF: Other standards in common use in the U.S.: J-STD-25A –Punchlist J-STD-25B –CDMA2000 wireless data PacketCable –VoIP for Cable networks T1.678 –VoIP for wireline, PTT, PoC ETSI 33.108 –GPRS wireless data ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new) Regards, Peter wispa wrote: There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tower climbing
Ya... I already tried that... there are 4 cell carriers, another WISP and several paging companies on this tower (it's 180ft). Apparently nobody else has ever said anything about it... The big problem is there are no foot peg attachments on the tower leg itself, so there really isn't a way to do it without a great deal of expense. Travis Tom DeReggi wrote: How about bringing up the safety issue to the tower company, and asking them to install more foot pegs :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing Ya... that's what I was afraid of... I've done it twice, but both times I keep thinking there has to be a better way... Travis Microserv Bob Moldashel wrote: Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it. You just gotta get balls of steel and slide over. Down one cross member and up another. We do it all the time. BTW: Be careful... :-) -B- Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a new tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft without any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more difficult. I believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 legs. The issue is there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft level... then the pegs start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the top. Getting from one leg to another at the 80ft level is the challenge. As you can see from the picture, the gap from the top brace to the bottom brace is almost 10feet in the center (I am 6'1). http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to leg movements across the braces? Thanks, 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] CALEA Mikrotik
excellent thread: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=67031sid=100a5b7521057953a31a8ecf60bed196 -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms
Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of behavior in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Rick Smith wrote: yeah, 100' away from the pop. across the street (dead side street, antenna way up above car level) This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the first on the repeater... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? 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] Strange Symptoms
yep, no matter which channel. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of behavior in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Rick Smith wrote: yeah, 100' away from the pop. across the street (dead side street, antenna way up above car level) This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the first on the repeater... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? R -- 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
wispa wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. You don't think this rule came down from the Bush Admin to the FCC? Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. This isn't knee-jerk. This is what I have found over the last 7 years. You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! Where in the constitution does it say anything about this??? Wiretap is law. Has been since 1934. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. You want to be a bank, you have a laundry list of regs you have to implement. You want to be a public company, bang 2 years ago SOX rules are applied and now public companies spend billions to comply. You want to be a healthcare provider, you better be HIPAA compliant at your cost. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. The same way any agency applies law. But this one was held up in federal court. Where does it say in the act of 1934 that you can have UL spectrum??? Where in the law - since there was no law, right? This is the FCC opinion - does it say $500M? You said there was no law. So how did $$ get appropriated? In the CALEA Act of 1994 there was probably money, but it has probably been spent too. This review states that providers had to pony up. http://www.is-journal.org/V02I03/g-park.pdf For data, it doesn't appear that bad. You have to have a CALEA compliant router at egress. Cisco is compliant. The standard is ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new). You just need to capture IP traffic at the point of egress and VPN it to the FBI transparently. For VoIP, it is much more difficult. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. How is complying with the law brown nosing? How is yelling on a public forum that I'm not going to comply helpful? You think that will get YOU any where??? Have you taken any steps to share your thoughts directly with your Congress Critter, the FCC, or the Feds? Did you activate your million person network to complain? WISP's want more spectrum. You can't get it if you don't play the game. CLEC's did not learn a lesson in the last 10 years. It took me 6 to figure out what the game was. Another helpful document from Verisign on CALEA: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6518176688 Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry. One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee that would promote wisps in their market place. Sounds good? Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help. Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the most giving. and he's not a wisp. Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to benefit wisps. So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you. Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to be active in wispa. Thanks George George Rogato wrote: Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
As a matter of fact, to give Peter R. some pay back for helping us. Do you guys know that he is the man to get you great pricing on bandwidth, just about anyplace in the country. So there is a plug for Peter R. and his ability to help you buy better. George George Rogato wrote: Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry. One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee that would promote wisps in their market place. Sounds good? Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help. Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the most giving. and he's not a wisp. Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to benefit wisps. So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you. Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to be active in wispa. Thanks George George Rogato wrote: Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply. A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they need to make to allow it to be easy to conform. DOJ doesn't concern itself with HOW to conform, they aren't ISPs and knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our capabilties. I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their competitors to comply to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
u got it. Verizons of the world are out there saying $100k for a way to stop terrorism ? NO PROBLEM! Those little guys must be sucked up and put out of business, so we can prevent another 9/11 argh what a crock of $**7! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply. A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they need to make to allow it to be easy to conform. DOJ doesn't concern itself with HOW to conform, they aren't ISPs and knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our capabilties. I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their competitors to comply to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Peter R. wrote: During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that can and will provide that access. I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage. If this CALEA crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end I doubt I will. I'll probably just be looking to sell out if possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened. I can try raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond well to raising prices. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping the authorities catch the bad guys. I have seen Mark protest footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority of government agencies attempting to regulate his business. I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust regulation as an industry. I would really like to hear a legal person's opinion on Mark's objections. The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim the authority to do something invasive. I seem to remember that they felt CARNIVORE was legal and justified. Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm betting he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a Republican run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security. Sam Tetherow Sandhills 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:08 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... -- 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:55:18 -0500, Sam Tetherow wrote Peter R. wrote: During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that can and will provide that access. I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage. If this CALEA crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end I doubt I will. I'll probably just be looking to sell out if possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened. I can try raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond well to raising prices. Let me quote www.askcalea.com Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs? A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special deficiency petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs. Theoretically, we have their word that it won't cost us, or require us to reengineer our networks. But from almost EVERYONE's conversations, we get we have to redesign, unless some people can use existing equipment's ability to mirror traffic from a particular IP. As of now, I see people talking about using PCAP, Cisco's internal system, managed switches at the gateway, etc. None of this makes a bit of sense if all we're supposed to do is capture VOIP packets! I have been attempting to make this point, that CALEA doesn't work for broadband internet, and I fail to see any relevance to broadband, since SUPPOSEDLY VOIP has to be tapped where it connects to the PSTN. I said that pending the outcome of people talking to the FBI and DOJ, that I am probably going to file that I am NOT and cannot be made compliant. Gee whiz, I expect that in 6-9 months, my network will have either 2 or 3 physically separated gateways to the 'net. In no place on my network, is there either software, or physical connections that allow me to do anything of the kind they envision. Nor am I willing to redesign my network's fundamental concept in order to comply. You get the distinct impression that while CALEA talks about nothing other than intercepting phone calls, that they want to tap broadband for everything else. If VOIP providers are compliant, why tap our networks? If htey aren't, then what do they expect to get? To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping the authorities catch the bad guys. I have seen Mark protest footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority of government agencies attempting to regulate his business. I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust regulation as an industry. I would really like to hear a legal person's opinion on Mark's objections. I've repeated that I absolutely intend to help, in any way possible, law enforcement's efforts to catch bad guys. I'll do what I can, and I don't consider that any imposition... but if I have to pay someone to do something for them, I expect them to pay the bill. Any help in capturing data will have to come from my upstream, as I have no central physical NOC to do this at... and never expect to. Unlike someone's mischaracterization of what I said here,
RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:10 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote The question is... if we're not providing VOIP service, doesn't this apply to the VOIP provider, and not me? How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf . . . j o n a t h a n Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the questions originated. 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 (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... It was forwarded to the general wisp list. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... How did you get the thread then? Lonnie On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not on that list. sorry, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? Thanks. Patrick Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I found this thread interesting. Enjoy, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are modifications to the APs FCC legal? No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!) How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable? What would a SA show the channel width to be? Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will adjust automatically. What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without reflector, with? The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles. Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist in the network development of Canopy products? There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of opportunity for direct consultation. Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing? In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.) Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that allocated, how true are those figures? Is the allocation dynamic? Can you mix breeds of SM on the AP? VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees, but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a lower rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if you wish. All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector. Can an SM access the AP it's on for management? In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management access. Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic? Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set per subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears its limit. Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization? Doesn't this limit the radio's ability to co-locate? The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be either H or V pol mounted. The AUs can be mounted either way (by way of antenna choice). Why is the latency so high for the APs (5-7ms)? N/A, but looking in terms
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
I've seen you on the MOTO list in the past :) Your a real trooper. Wish there were some unemployed Patrick Leary clones around. WOW, could you imaging what a Patrick Leary clone could do for your business. Yikes, talk about agressive... Patrick Leary wrote: Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the questions originated. 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 (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... It was forwarded to the general wisp list. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... How did you get the thread then? Lonnie On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not on that list. sorry, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? Thanks. Patrick Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I found this thread interesting. Enjoy, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are modifications to the APs FCC legal? No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!) How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable? What would a SA show the channel width to be? Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will adjust automatically. What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without reflector, with? The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles. Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist in the network development of Canopy products? There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of opportunity for direct consultation. Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing? In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.) Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that allocated, how true are those figures? Is the allocation dynamic? Can you mix breeds of SM on the AP? VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees, but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a lower rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if you wish. All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector. Can an SM access the AP it's on for management? In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management access. Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic? Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set per subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears its limit. Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization? Doesn't this limit the radio's ability to co-locate? The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be either H or V pol mounted. The
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
A clone? God forbid. My wife would not tolerate it, much less anyone else. BTW, I did not post that to the Moto list though, out of competitive respect. It was just a really interesting and l o n g list and I thought it would be interesting, if only for me, to give a shot answering it from a VL perspective (they were all Moto questions) and comparing, if only to myself. I did get a few private responses from the WISP post and I am getting to them. P.S. - I am more persistent than aggressive...well, maybe a bit of both. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... I've seen you on the MOTO list in the past :) Your a real trooper. Wish there were some unemployed Patrick Leary clones around. WOW, could you imaging what a Patrick Leary clone could do for your business. Yikes, talk about agressive... Patrick Leary wrote: Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the questions originated. 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 (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... It was forwarded to the general wisp list. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... How did you get the thread then? Lonnie On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not on that list. sorry, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? Thanks. Patrick Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I found this thread interesting. Enjoy, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are modifications to the APs FCC legal? No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!) How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable? What would a SA show the channel width to be? Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will adjust automatically. What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without reflector, with? The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles. Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist in the network development of Canopy products? There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of opportunity for direct consultation. Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing? In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.) Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that allocated, how true are those
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
LAES stands for; lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. Frank Muto WBIA www.wbia.us P.S. Also a supporting WISPA vendor. - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms
What board are you running Mikrotik on and do you see any latency on the 5.8 side? -Original Message- From: Rick Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 March 2007 20:28 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms yep, no matter which channel. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of behavior in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Rick Smith wrote: yeah, 100' away from the pop. across the street (dead side street, antenna way up above car level) This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the first on the repeater... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? R -- 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] Strange Symptoms
Rick, The signals levels sound like they may be WAY TOO HIGH for this short of a link. Receiver overload has the effect of making a receiver deaf. Try a tiny antenna (maybe a rubber duck) on the CPE and re-do the ping test. jack Rick Smith wrote: yeah, 100' away from the pop. across the street (dead side street, antenna way up above car level) This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the first on the repeater... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms History? Did it ever work? Distance? 100' from the POP? The signals are too hot. jack Rick Smith wrote: I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2 with currently one customer on it. He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and some time-outs. I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency. Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a hotspot on a rooftop) But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this. A drive up to the hotspot with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his other computers with a wifi card in it. Things to look for / do ? R -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting 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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Sam Tetherow wrote: Peter R. wrote: During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. Well, that's the way DC works - you do for me and I do for you. The CLEC's did not learn that lesson. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed
I'm safe. If she wants me, she has already been to my house, so she knows where to find me (And before you even start, Ken was here with her). :-) JohnnyO wrote: LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-) Tim Wolfe wrote: I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me. JohnnyO wrote: How far away are you from that location ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL! :-$ JohnnyO wrote: It's a great area sir ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wolfe Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of a PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??. JohnnyO wrote: Can Anyone service this location Link to a google map - Location http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1 to be serviced How about Saxton PA Regards, JohnnyO -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] UHF tower co-location
looking for someone that knows more about this than me (which may be most everybody) to give me a quick heads-up.. Up to this point, all of the access points I have deployed have been on water towers or buildings which did not have any other significant RF equipment on them. I may have an opportunity to co-locate on a UHF TV transmitter tower now though. Can someone tell me in just a few words whether or not I should even consider mounting WISP equipment on such a tower, and what some of the issues I would face would be? According to the FCC site, the tower is operating between 566-572 mhz at about 12.5kW analog, and 7.2kW digital. Interference in unlicensed bands (900mHz, 2.4gHz, and 5.8gHz), radio frequency hazards etc... any information you could give me would be helpful. John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
