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
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
---
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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 @
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
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
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
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
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]
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:
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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 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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
