[WISPA] Broadband Use To Reach 100 Million
Broadband Use To Reach 100 Million Submitted by Mike Sachoff on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 09:01. The United States has 54.6 million broadband households, while China has 46.6 million; the two countries comprise the largest broadband markets in the world. On a global scale there were 250 broadband households at the end of 2006. Countries such as South Korea, Japan and, to a lesser extent, the United States are entering a new phase of broadband development, says Ben Macklin, eMarketer senior analyst and the author of the new Broadband Worldwide: 2005-2011 report. The market is moving from the high-speed Internet to the very-high-speed Internet. In South Korea and Japan broadband users are switching from DSL to higher broadband technologies such as optical fiber. Japan had a policy early in the decade to bring optical fiber to homes across the country. In 2006 there were around 7.5 million fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) subscribers in Japan, making it the largest number of FTTH subscribers in the world. What does that mean? asks Mr. Macklin. It means that a typical Japanese home can access 50 mbps-100 mbps for the price of what most people pay for 1 mbps in other countries. South Korea is also in their next phase of broadband development. ADSL is becoming the next technology as South Koreans upgrade their connection to fiber LAN connections. Broadband adoption in North America has been more widespread in Canada than in the U.S. eMarketer projects that 50 percent of Canadian households had broadband at the end of 2005, compared to 38 percent of U.S. households. There will be more than 100 million broadband household in North America by 2011. Greater bandwidth availability doesn't merely represent technology and infrastructure opportunities - it is opening up a wide array of opportunities for online marketing and content distribution, too, says Mr. Macklin. As consumers get more, they will want more, and that will be will be one of the key drivers of global broadband expansion in the coming years. http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/03/23/north-american-broadband-use-to-reach-100-million -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC To Study Broadband Practices
FCC To Study Broadband Practices The issue is one of four 'principles' deemed important enough to be studied by the FCC. By W. David Gardner InformationWeek March 22, 2007 05:32 PM The issue of whether broadband providers should charge different prices for different speeds or capacities will be studied by the Federal Communications Commission, the regulatory agency reported Thursday. The issue is one of four principles deemed important enough to be studied by the FCC. The FCC Notice of Inquiry has been approved by the five commissioners of the FCC, although Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, suggested the inquiry could disappear into the regulatory dustbin, putting off decisions that need to be made now. Copps pointed out that the United States is falling behind other nations in broadband, and he called the study one tiny, timid step. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a Republican, noted that the intent of the principles to be studied was to protect consumer access to the lawful online content of their choice and to foster the creation, adoption, and use of Internet broadband content, applications, and services. Martin added that the inquiry will provide a forum for broadband providers to describe the happenings in the broadband market. In addition to pricing issues, the FCC study will examine how Internet traffic is managed by providers and whether the FCC should distinguish between providers that charge for content and those that do not charge, and how consumers are affected by these various practices. http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500183cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Ericsson deals blow to WiMAX
Monday, March 26, 2007 - 9:34 (GMT+99) Ericsson deals blow to WiMAX Filed under: Mobile Phones | by :luk | Red Herring: Ericsson on Friday confirmed reports that it has quietly closed down development and manufacturing of WiMAX products, making it the first major telecommunications equipment maker to pull out of the next generation wireless broadband technology. The Swedish company’s decision to turn its back on WiMAX , seen as an alternative to third generation cellular phone technologies and as a way to connect homes or businesses to the internet, could prompt other equipment vendors to follow suit, said one analyst. “WiMAX offers nothing that cannot be offered by 3G (third generation mobile) based technologies,” said Mikael Persson, manager of strategy and business development Wideband CDMA at Ericsson. Ericsson is a major manufacturer of 3G mobile phone technologies and was a late convert to WiMAX. The vendor in December 2004 joined the WiMAX Forum as a “principal member,” adding that it would “strongly contribute to the existing competence of the forum.” http://www.about-electronics.eu/2007/03/26/ericsson-deals-blow-to-wimax/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wireless broadband grants announced by N.H.
Saturday, March 24, 2007 Wireless broadband grants announced by N.H. The New Hampshire Division of Economic Development's Telecommunications Advisory Board has unveiled a $100,000 matching grant initiative to stimulate and support wireless broadband public/private projects throughout the state. This is good news for the state of New Hampshire, said Gov. John Lynch. This will help us reach our goal of ensuring there is broadband connectivity throughout the state, especially in the North Country and the western part of New Hampshire. A total of $100,000 in dollar for dollar matching grants have been set aside with initial grant awards limited to up to $10,000 per project. Applications are available immediately and will be accepted until June 15. We're very much looking forward to receiving applications which promote wireless broadband technology, said division Director Michael Vlacich. Broadband is a prime innovation and marketing tool which can positively affect a company's bottom line and we need to ensure that we're consistently looking at new ways to further its application. These grants are a great step in that direction. For additional information visit www.nheconomy.com or call the Division of Economic Development at (603) 271-2341. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070324/FOSTERS01/103240184 -- 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
Butch Evans wrote: This is not acceptable. ALL facilities based service providers are required to be compliant. How is using a 3rd party not compliant? I seem to recall the FCC specifically allows for 3rd parties to provide your compliance. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA
A ttp is compliant. But it's entirely possible (probably likely) that the ttp's hardware will have to be at the wisp's local. Not at the upstream. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Butch Evans wrote: This is not acceptable. ALL facilities based service providers are required to be compliant. How is using a 3rd party not compliant? I seem to recall the FCC specifically allows for 3rd parties to provide your compliance. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] one-third of U.S. households have no Internet...and do not plan to get it
MOUNTAIN VIEW, California (Reuters) - A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a survey released on Friday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/od_nm/internet_holdouts_odd_dc;_ylt=Ajd_D_JeLhjUgI3IVOtLYJntiBIF -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Agreed. Just getting caught up on some of my email readings and strongly believe Jack and John are off the mark here. 6GHz, 11GHz, 18GHz, 23GHz, 24GHz, 60GHz and 80-90GHz should all be important to us as a group. Any frequency that can be used by fixed wireless operators should be important to the group. For Jack and John to assume the focus as a group should be limited to UL frequencies is short sighted to say the least. Many operations, ours included, are already utilizing licensed spectrum were we can. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Anything related to 11Ghz, should be WISPs concern. It is my belief that all serious unlicensed ISPs will at some point start to migrate to Licensed spectrums for backhauls. 11Ghz is one of the few upgrade options available for WISP's that designed their existing backhaul to 5.8Ghz functionality. (meaning needing 4ft dish 11Ghz to reach equivellent distances of 5.8Ghz 2ft dish links, in practicality). There really aren't very many Long range backhaul spectrum range options out there. Relaxing the rules could result in the inabilty for many WISPs to obtain 11Ghz licenses, because of unavailable spectrum, when they are ready to need it. A 2ft dish beamwidth (9-10 degrees) will cover the width of most of a small city at 10 miles. (Sorry I didn't do the Angle math yet). Compared to that of 4 ft dish beamwidths. As much as I'd like a 2 ft Dish, how would that effect my future abilty to get a license? Thats an important question. Fibertower wants 2ft dishes today because they are ready to buy up the licenses today. Are the rest of the WISPs ready to buy the licenses today? How much license space is available still? I think some propogation data and current saturation data (number of links / potential for more links) would need to be disclosed first to develop a relevant opinion. And how would the rules effect cost? Currently 11Ghz is significantly more expensive to obtain because of dish size. If smaller more advanced dishes were allowed, a 2ft dish that had the characteristics of 3-4ft dishes, would those dishes be more expensive because of their unique better characterisitcs? The truth is, every provider would chose 11Ghz over 18Ghz, if they could get away with a smaller dish. It would likely lead to less use of 18Ghz and 23 Ghz. Is 18Ghz getting saturated? If so it would be relevent to allow 11Ghz to take over the load. But I'd argue that 18Ghz should be near at capacity before 11Ghz be allowed to be more leanent in antenna size. The bigger fight for smaller antennas is to allow 6Ghz to be allowed to use 4 ft dishes. 6ft dish requirement is insane. If 6Ghz was allowed to use 4ft dished, it would then give another option for long range, (within a realistic antenna size for roof tops), then justifying the allowance for 11Ghz to have smaller antennas. The question is, why isn't Fibertower just using 18Ghz in their applications? Can they prove that 18Ghz is to limiting or unavailable for them? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband John Scrivner wrote: Thank you Jack. You said it better than I could have. :-) Scriv Jack Unger wrote: Dylan, It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical responese to submit to the FCC. jack Dylan Oliver wrote: I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required for licensed links .. I just found this in the latest Rural Spectrum Scanner from Bennett Law (http://www.bennetlaw.com/rss.php?vol=13issue=12). Should WISPA endorse this? I'm not familiar with the details of 11 GHz regulation. *FCC Seeks Comment on the Use of Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band* The FCC has released a *Public Notice* announcing that it has adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comment on whether to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. The FCC initiated the rulemaking pursuant to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by FiberTower, Inc., a wireless backhaul provider, proposing to change
[WISPA] Triad VoIP
I wanted to share with my excellent experience with Don Annas from Triad Telecom. I contacted him about VoIP deployment since I need to provide a solution to an MTU. I had the small blurb he submitted about his business. I've never gotten into VoIP and needed (still need) some pretty extensive hand-holding -- like the kind we local ISPs give to our customers. Don gave me the support I needed and answered all my questions so I just wanted to publicly thank him for his time, expertise and guidance. He was talking in his VoIP line -- which didn't skip a beat! I was impressed. So I now foresee buying inbound/outbound minutes from Triad, being able to provide VoIP services to my MTU and not having to reinvent the wheel. Don, I don't know if you really want all this advertising. I may just contribute to you getting swamped with calls from WISPA members about buying VoIP lines from you, but here it is. I've done it. Thanks a lot for your help! Mario P.S. For those sitting on the fence about paying your WISPA dues, my experience should be an encouragement for you to pay: it may bring you additional business and/or additional benefits and/or both. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Hi, As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings about CALEA from the past few weeks. Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to any other customer or routed to the Internet, so I think we'll be able to SPAN all customer traffic and from there manipulate the data streams and hand them off to law enforcement. The only exception to this case might be our Waverider CCU's, which are routing packets between various end-users. I am going to contact them to see what their take is on implementing LI -- we might need to stop using the CCU's as routers. The main questions I have for the forum are ... assuming we can at least make a copy of a given customer's traffic without the customer realizing it (i.e. non-intrusively), how are we going to be able to format the data to be able to hand it off to law enforcement? We obviously want to do this in the most cost-effective way possible (read: open source solution). http://www.opencalea.org/ definitely looks promising, but it is just getting off the ground as far as I can tell. I wonder if there are any other groups out there working on this. As far as compliance standards go, as far as I can tell, the one that most fits us might be ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP data, but I'm still confused about that. When I visit http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html, I see a link for Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS which takes me to https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22665. Is this all the same as ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP? Somehow I don't have the feeling that paying $164.00 for this standard is going to help get me in the right direction We do have a couple savvy Linux guru-types in house that could deploy a good open-source solution and keep it updated, I think. But I don't think we're up to developing such a solution ourselves from scratch. I did find a device made by a company called Solera (http://www.voip-news.com/feature/solera-calea-voip-packet-capture-031907/) which looks like it could be cost-effective (read: ~$7000.00) for a small ISP (read: ~1,000 customers) like us. Obviously we would prefer open source, but at least it was a relief to see that we might be able to avoid the $40,000 - $100,000 solutions I've been hearing about from TTP's and other (larger) ISPs. Matt Liotta, you mentioned that you have the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved. Would you be willing to share some details about the solution you've been able to come up with? I do see the opportunity that this whole CALEA thing could provide to some ISP's who figure out a way to develop a cost-effective solution and then offer consulting services or **affordable** TTP services to other companies ... I also read with interest the Baller law group's Key Legal and Technical Requirements and Options for CALEA (http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BHLG-CTC_CALEA_Memo.pdf) that Peter Radizeski forwarded to the list. I had not taken seriously the possibility of filing a section 109(b) petition, but if we do due diligence and really do not find an affordable solution to deploy on our network, I think we may have to seriously consider that (for example, the part about asking to be considered compliant as long as we can meet most of LI's requirements, if not all of them). Please excuse the long and rambling post ... I'm just having a hard time finding out how to grab a hold of this CALEA beast. Thanks, Adam --- Adam Greene VP, Operations Webjogger Internet Services http://www.webjogger.net (845) 757-4000 x134 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vonage
What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip ... Many thanks to Peter, who supplied all the specifics of the patents in question. Interesting reading. ... and how does that effect the future? I read the public announcement from Vonage issued the same day as the injunction. Basically, it sounds like they have no intention of obeying the court order. They state their intention to continue service until they get a chance to request a stay of the injunction (in about 2 weeks), and further that they have no intention of halting service as required by the injunction should their request for a stay be denied (which they say they'd then appeal). Stay tuned for that next hearing in 2 weeks. Vonage press release: Vonage Enjoined; Company Expresses Confidence in Obtaining Stay and in Appeal and Ability to Deliver Uninterrupted Service to Customers HOLMDEL, N.J., March 23, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- The U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. today issued an order enjoining Vonage from using certain VoIP technology named in its patent litigation with Verizon. The order is not immediately effective, however, and Vonage is confident its customers will see no change in their phone service. The court announced its intent to hear stay argument in two weeks' time. At that time, the court intends to render a decision regarding the stay, as well as making the injunction effective. If the court denies the stay, Vonage will seek a stay through appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals. Vonage is confident it will be able to obtain a stay through appeal. We are confident Vonage customers will not experience service interruptions or other changes as a result of this litigation, said Mike Snyder, Vonage's chief executive officer. The company has drafted its notice of appeal of the March 8 jury verdict and will file that notice at the appropriate juncture in the court proceedings. Our fight is far from over, Snyder said. We remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue vigorously contending in federal appeals court - and that Vonage will ultimately prevail in this case. Snyder continued, Despite this obvious attempt by Verizon to cripple Vonage, the litigation will not stop Vonage from continuing to provide quality VoIP service to our millions of customers. Our appeal centers on erroneous patent claim construction, and we remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue to vigorously assert in federal appeals court, said Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal officer and secretary. Vonage relied on open-standard, off-the-shelf technology when developing its service. In fact, evidence introduced in court failed to prove that Vonage relied on Verizon's VoIP technology, and instead showed that in 2003 Verizon began exploring ways to copy Vonage's technology, she added. The company is focused on growing its business by investing in the rollout of new technology and features, and continuing to grow its customer base. Vonage's accomplishments continue to validate its business model and strategy. The company has achieved 19 consecutive quarters of double-digit revenue growth, doubled revenues to $607 million in 2006 alone, and added nearly 1 million net subscriber lines last year. - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM Subject: [WISPA] Vonage What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that effect the future? -- 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] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service
Thanks, Marlon. I'm going to give it a try. I'll figure out if I want to charge my customers for it or not. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Yes, but those that don't want the service will just pass through. marlon - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Since it is MX-based are you saying that all accounts for a particular domain must be routed through the service? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Mark, As a WISPA sponsoring vendor for Postini, I can offer some information as I was a Postini customer before I was asked to become a Postini Partner Reseller. Postini uses an MX directed service that redirects your customer's messages through the Postini hosted filtering data centers. Accounts can be manually created or use one of two automated user creation methods. There are no software or hardware concerns and the interface is 100% web based for all your system administration. Since closing down our dialup data center in 2002, we moved all our webhosting to our secondary provider we have used from our beginning and needed stronger filtering methods. Since we were too far away to administer an appliance type service, e.g. Barracuda, Ironport, etc., we gave Postini a try. Our main concern was reducing our server loads and increased disc space for handling the increasing amount of spam and viruses. Postini handled this by being at the front edge of the network and killing off a significant amount of wasted bandwidth created by spam/viruses, a definite plus. Since we did both virtual and dedicated hosting, our virtually hosted accounts that had high amounts of spam traffic, we saw increased server performance and significant amount of reduced disc space as well as reduced bandwidth overall. The cost of using Postini was genuinely a concern, but so was the potential cost of losing revenue from customers wanting a better filtering service and costs of increased bandwidth and server resources. We took advantage of Postini's 30 day trial and gave all our clients the same. We put all of our customer domains on the service and in using Postini's reporting, were able to see our largest email contributors and provide those stats to our customers on a before and after period of using Postini. This provided a good development tool in determining our costs to our customers and how we could offer the service to them and at what price. That said, we also began reaching outside of our own hosted customers and promoted Postini to other businesses, especially those hosting their own mail servers, e.g., MS Exchange. We again offered free trials and developed a significant amount of additional business by promoting Postini and leveraging their existing marketing and press credentials. By Postini being a hosted service, (Software as a Service - SaaS) we were also able to provide businesses with multiple offices a centralized management control of their email system messages. We have customers with as little as five accounts and some with over a thousand users and I can honestly say our churn is hardly measurable in almost 4 years of providing Postini, because they did not like or afford the service. One of the best features I feel Postini offers is a wireless feature for filtering to PDA's, e.g. Blackberry and Treo's. We actually have a few IT specialty companies promoting this feature alone and doing a very good job at that. As for the impact, all I can say is that in all my time providing Internet related services, I have never had an easier time than that in offering Postini. In fact, I have completely focused my company's direction on providing Postini exclusively and hopefully adding other related email services in the future. In closing, no matter what service you use for spam/virus control, your customers need it and want it. Best Regards, Frank Muto President FSM Marketing Group, Inc. Postini Partner Reseller http://wispa.spam-virus.com Toll Free: 800-246-7740 Cell: 630-258-7422 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you using this service, please tell me about it. 1. How
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- 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] Postini Mail Scanning Service
I hope it works out for you. Work with Frank on it. He can get you a 30 day free trial. We did that and it turned out to be a powerful sales tool for us as well. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Thanks, Marlon. I'm going to give it a try. I'll figure out if I want to charge my customers for it or not. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Yes, but those that don't want the service will just pass through. marlon - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Since it is MX-based are you saying that all accounts for a particular domain must be routed through the service? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Postini Mail Scanning Service Mark, As a WISPA sponsoring vendor for Postini, I can offer some information as I was a Postini customer before I was asked to become a Postini Partner Reseller. Postini uses an MX directed service that redirects your customer's messages through the Postini hosted filtering data centers. Accounts can be manually created or use one of two automated user creation methods. There are no software or hardware concerns and the interface is 100% web based for all your system administration. Since closing down our dialup data center in 2002, we moved all our webhosting to our secondary provider we have used from our beginning and needed stronger filtering methods. Since we were too far away to administer an appliance type service, e.g. Barracuda, Ironport, etc., we gave Postini a try. Our main concern was reducing our server loads and increased disc space for handling the increasing amount of spam and viruses. Postini handled this by being at the front edge of the network and killing off a significant amount of wasted bandwidth created by spam/viruses, a definite plus. Since we did both virtual and dedicated hosting, our virtually hosted accounts that had high amounts of spam traffic, we saw increased server performance and significant amount of reduced disc space as well as reduced bandwidth overall. The cost of using Postini was genuinely a concern, but so was the potential cost of losing revenue from customers wanting a better filtering service and costs of increased bandwidth and server resources. We took advantage of Postini's 30 day trial and gave all our clients the same. We put all of our customer domains on the service and in using Postini's reporting, were able to see our largest email contributors and provide those stats to our customers on a before and after period of using Postini. This provided a good development tool in determining our costs to our customers and how we could offer the service to them and at what price. That said, we also began reaching outside of our own hosted customers and promoted Postini to other businesses, especially those hosting their own mail servers, e.g., MS Exchange. We again offered free trials and developed a significant amount of additional business by promoting Postini and leveraging their existing marketing and press credentials. By Postini being a hosted service, (Software as a Service - SaaS) we were also able to provide businesses with multiple offices a centralized management control of their email system messages. We have customers with as little as five accounts and some with over a thousand users and I can honestly say our churn is hardly measurable in almost 4 years of providing Postini, because they did not like or afford the service. One of the best features I feel Postini offers is a wireless feature for filtering to PDA's, e.g. Blackberry and Treo's. We actually have a few IT specialty companies promoting this feature alone and doing a very good job at that. As for the impact, all I can say is that in all my time providing Internet related services, I have never had an easier time than that in offering Postini. In fact, I have completely focused my company's direction on providing Postini exclusively and hopefully adding other related email services in the future. In closing, no matter what service you use for spam/virus control, your customers
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings about CALEA from the past few weeks. Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to any other customer or routed to the Internet, so I think we'll be able to SPAN all customer traffic and from there manipulate the data streams and hand them off to law enforcement. The only exception to this case might be our Waverider CCU's, which are routing packets between various end-users. I am going to contact them to see what their take is on implementing LI -- we might need to stop using the CCU's as routers. The main questions I have for the forum are ... assuming we can at least make a copy of a given customer's traffic without the customer realizing it (i.e. non-intrusively), how are we going to be able to format the data to be able to hand it off to law enforcement? We obviously want to do this in the most cost-effective way possible (read: open source solution). http://www.opencalea.org/ definitely looks promising, but it is just getting off the ground as far as I can tell. I wonder if there are any other groups out there working on this. As far as compliance standards go, as far as I can tell, the one that most fits us might be ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP data, but I'm still confused about that. When I visit http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html, I see a link for Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS which takes me to https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22665. Is this all the same as ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP? Somehow I don't have the feeling that paying $164.00 for this standard is going to help get me in the right direction We do have a couple savvy Linux guru-types in house that could deploy a good open-source solution and keep it updated, I think. But I don't think we're up to developing such a solution ourselves from scratch. I did find a device made by a company called Solera (http://www.voip-news.com/feature/solera-calea-voip-packet-capture- 031907/) which looks like it could be cost-effective (read: ~$7000.00) for a small ISP (read: ~1,000 customers) like us. Obviously we would prefer open source, but at least it was a relief to see that we might be able to avoid the $40,000 - $100,000 solutions I've been hearing about from TTP's and other (larger) ISPs. Matt Liotta, you mentioned that you have the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved. Would you be willing to share some details about the solution you've been able to come up with? I do see the opportunity that this whole CALEA thing could provide to some ISP's who figure out a way to develop a cost-effective solution and then offer consulting services or **affordable** TTP services to other companies ... I also read with interest the Baller law group's Key Legal and Technical Requirements and Options for CALEA (http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BHLG-CTC_CALEA_Memo.pdf) that Peter Radizeski forwarded to the list. I had not taken seriously the possibility of filing a section 109(b) petition, but if we do due diligence and really do not find an affordable solution to deploy on our network, I think we may have to seriously consider that (for example, the part about asking to be considered compliant as long as we can meet most of LI's requirements, if not all of them). Please excuse the long and rambling post ... I'm just having a hard time finding out how to grab a hold of this CALEA beast. Hi, let me quote from www.askcalea.com On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition. Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites? A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as information services such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered. 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
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:08:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. I'm sorta puzzled by this claim of crisis. I can't think of any...and I mean... ANY provider, who can support simultaneous and sustained 1+Mbit to more than half of thier customer base. Cable can't. The telco's really don't have that much bandwidth to their CO's. The backbone companies haven't got anywhere NEAR enough capacity to manage that. Now, if I could cache and redistribute using some kind of proxy mechanism, I could do it if the great majority of the traffic were streaming data from common sources. But scaling would be... well...quite a challenge. It would require that all my clients would be restricted to only a few sources for all of the streaming data. While I can see Ken's point, I believe he's very much wrong in his analysis of the state of the both the technology and the competition. I know I'm not ready for VOIP AND VOD to half my customers at the same time. But then neither is any of my competition. I guess the question is... If it jumps up on us, who can restructure faster? -- 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/
[WISPA] Re: Postini Mail Scanning Service
I think the technical details are covered here pretty well. In general, the service is rock solid and works quite well. At a former company, we deployed it and used it for several years and never had any complaints on a technical level that I can recall. It really did help retain our customers; we were usually able to pass the cost along to customers or sometimes give it as a freebie to customers looking to cancel. The only downside was pricing; Postini has altered their pricing in the past couple of years making it more expensive, especially for business domains (as far as I remember). We decided it wasn't worth it and replaced their service with Katharion, which we were very happy with and felt we got a lot better value. Postini's platform had a little more polish, though. - Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
I agree with Travis for similar reasons. I doubt anyone other than the fiber to the home people are going to be able to compete with IPTV unless something drastic happens for wireless delivery of bandwidth. With the proliferation of 720p HDTV and up I can't see someone hooking that up to the internet so they can watch 320x240 videos. The goggle/youtube numbers are impressive, but they really are apples to oranges when comparing to TV content. 151 minutes of programming a month is a far cry from the average of at least that a day for normal TV viewing. In my opinion there is only one thing that will make IPTV the killer application and that is retroactive time shifting. In other words, if I'm at the coffee shop and everyone is talking about the cool show they watched last night or over the weekend and I can go online and get it. Until that occurs I don't see the benefit of tying up my IP pipe for video when I can affordably get it off of a medium better suited for it (general broadcast rather than the multiple ptp streams of IPTV). Until someone works out a deal with the major networks to be able to store and serve content at an affordable rate most people will stick with a dish/cable and a HD PVR. Going to the network sites only in a last ditch to get that episode of Lost that they missed. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless George Rogato wrote: Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. -- 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 compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote extracting a snippet from Adam's interesting prose A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as information services such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered. /snip On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 wispa wrote in reply: extracting a relevant portion of the reply Read this carefully, it says that website visits, IM, etc, are NOT included in the information you must capture. Yeah, yeah, it says the companies that provide those services need not be compliant - if that's the case, then that data is not included in the required types. Only specific types of information, mostly being VIOP calls are detailed. Since VOIP calls are tapped at the provider's end, it appears that really IS NO INCLUDED DATA that needs to be tapped at the ISP's end, unless somehow we're supposed to find peer to peer voice data buried in the packet flow or something. Of course, this conflicts to some degree with other information published elsewhere... and here, too. I'm not sure it doesn't conflict with the FCC's and FBI's recent comments, too. /snip Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 I think the assertion that website visits, IM, etc, are not included actually is a statement that those subject to the provisions of CALEA are not defined by whether or not they offer visits to websites or IM capability, but rather whether or not they offer broadband internet access. Such as an Internet access provider who does not qualify as a broadband provider (dial-up?) is not subject to the provisions of CALEA, even though they may enable the public to utilize email over their networks, whereas a provider of broadband internet access is subject to those provisions, simply because they offer broadband, but not because their users have email capability. It is then up to the LEA's and courts to determine what they want to sniff, which may or may not include the email, IM, web site visits, etc... Of course, IANAL. John Vogel -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV - HomeZone
Well with ATT's HomeZone there is a lot of bandwidth use coming up. We are testing it up here in Alaska and it works quite slick. It downloads via the WiMax network and caches it for you. So the bandwidth usage it the deal, not IPTV streaming. Anyone else on the list using it? -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:40:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV I agree with Travis for similar reasons. I doubt anyone other than the fiber to the home people are going to be able to compete with IPTV unless something drastic happens for wireless delivery of bandwidth. With the proliferation of 720p HDTV and up I can't see someone hooking that up to the internet so they can watch 320x240 videos. The goggle/youtube numbers are impressive, but they really are apples to oranges when comparing to TV content. 151 minutes of programming a month is a far cry from the average of at least that a day for normal TV viewing. In my opinion there is only one thing that will make IPTV the killer application and that is retroactive time shifting. In other words, if I'm at the coffee shop and everyone is talking about the cool show they watched last night or over the weekend and I can go online and get it. Until that occurs I don't see the benefit of tying up my IP pipe for video when I can affordably get it off of a medium better suited for it (general broadcast rather than the multiple ptp streams of IPTV). Until someone works out a deal with the major networks to be able to store and serve content at an affordable rate most people will stick with a dish/cable and a HD PVR. Going to the network sites only in a last ditch to get that episode of Lost that they missed. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless George Rogato wrote: Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. -- 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 compliance methods
Mark, your info is 3 years old We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs. marlon - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings about CALEA from the past few weeks. Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to any other customer or routed to the Internet, so I think we'll be able to SPAN all customer traffic and from there manipulate the data streams and hand them off to law enforcement. The only exception to this case might be our Waverider CCU's, which are routing packets between various end-users. I am going to contact them to see what their take is on implementing LI -- we might need to stop using the CCU's as routers. The main questions I have for the forum are ... assuming we can at least make a copy of a given customer's traffic without the customer realizing it (i.e. non-intrusively), how are we going to be able to format the data to be able to hand it off to law enforcement? We obviously want to do this in the most cost-effective way possible (read: open source solution). http://www.opencalea.org/ definitely looks promising, but it is just getting off the ground as far as I can tell. I wonder if there are any other groups out there working on this. As far as compliance standards go, as far as I can tell, the one that most fits us might be ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP data, but I'm still confused about that. When I visit http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html, I see a link for Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS which takes me to https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22665. Is this all the same as ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP? Somehow I don't have the feeling that paying $164.00 for this standard is going to help get me in the right direction We do have a couple savvy Linux guru-types in house that could deploy a good open-source solution and keep it updated, I think. But I don't think we're up to developing such a solution ourselves from scratch. I did find a device made by a company called Solera (http://www.voip-news.com/feature/solera-calea-voip-packet-capture- 031907/) which looks like it could be cost-effective (read: ~$7000.00) for a small ISP (read: ~1,000 customers) like us. Obviously we would prefer open source, but at least it was a relief to see that we might be able to avoid the $40,000 - $100,000 solutions I've been hearing about from TTP's and other (larger) ISPs. Matt Liotta, you mentioned that you have the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved. Would you be willing to share some details about the solution you've been able to come up with? I do see the opportunity that this whole CALEA thing could provide to some ISP's who figure out a way to develop a cost-effective solution and then offer consulting services or **affordable** TTP services to other companies ... I also read with interest the Baller law group's Key Legal and Technical Requirements and Options for CALEA (http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BHLG-CTC_CALEA_Memo.pdf) that Peter Radizeski forwarded to the list. I had not taken seriously the possibility of filing a section 109(b) petition, but if we do due diligence and really do not find an affordable solution to deploy on our network, I think we may have to seriously consider that (for example, the part about asking to be considered compliant as long as we can meet most of LI's requirements, if not all of them). Please excuse the long and rambling post ... I'm just having a hard time finding out how to grab a hold of this CALEA beast. Hi, let me quote from www.askcalea.com On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition. Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites? A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as information services such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered. 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
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the WISP community. We all know that. A few of us have been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community since 1995. The manufacturers are the ones that we are going to be buying our licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would their interest in 11 GHz dish size be any different from our interest? Wouldn't it be in their interest to make the best equipment to serve us? If allowing smaller dishes on 11 GHz was bad and if it would lead to fewer licensed links being deployable then wouldn't the equipment manufacturers oppose the proposed changes? Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more clearly - for everyone's benefit? By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have put into improving the WISP community since 1999. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Jack, With all due respect We don't need engineers to know what we'd like the rules to be like! WISPA is here to serve the interests of the wisp community. The manufacturers can look after themselves. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Dylan, It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical responese to submit to the FCC. jack Dylan Oliver wrote: I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required for licensed links .. I just found this in the latest Rural Spectrum Scanner from Bennett Law (http://www.bennetlaw.com/rss.php?vol=13issue=12). Should WISPA endorse this? I'm not familiar with the details of 11 GHz regulation. *FCC Seeks Comment on the Use of Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band* The FCC has released a *Public Notice* announcing that it has adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comment on whether to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. The FCC initiated the rulemaking pursuant to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by FiberTower, Inc., a wireless backhaul provider, proposing to change the technical parameters that would permit the use of smaller FS antennas with reduced mainbeam gain, increased beamwidth, and modified sidelobe suppression in the 11 GHz band. The FCC seeks comment on whether FiberTower, Inc.'s proposals would serve the public interest by facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band while protecting other users in the band from interference due to the use of smaller antennas. The pleading cycle has not yet been established. Best, -- 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/ -- 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] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
All due respect right back at ya! grin Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish? I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause interference they have to fix it. I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry. Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and greatest technologies available to them. If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins. The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the field. We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do what's expedient in the field. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility? No one here needs to be reminded that we're here to serve the interests of the WISP community. We all know that. A few of us have been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community since 1995. The manufacturers are the ones that we are going to be buying our licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would their interest in 11 GHz dish size be any different from our interest? Wouldn't it be in their interest to make the best equipment to serve us? If allowing smaller dishes on 11 GHz was bad and if it would lead to fewer licensed links being deployable then wouldn't the equipment manufacturers oppose the proposed changes? Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more clearly - for everyone's benefit? By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have put into improving the WISP community since 1999. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Jack, With all due respect We don't need engineers to know what we'd like the rules to be like! WISPA is here to serve the interests of the wisp community. The manufacturers can look after themselves. marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Dylan, It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical responese to submit to the FCC. jack Dylan Oliver wrote: I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required for licensed links .. I just found this in the latest Rural Spectrum Scanner from Bennett Law (http://www.bennetlaw.com/rss.php?vol=13issue=12). Should WISPA endorse this? I'm not familiar with the details of 11 GHz regulation. *FCC Seeks Comment on the Use of Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band* The FCC has released a *Public Notice* announcing that it has adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comment on whether to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. The FCC initiated the rulemaking
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Brad, I think you may be misquoting or misunderstanding me. No good can come from that. Real questions need to be asked and need to be correctly answered before we risk our reputation by filing comments with the FCC that are technically incomplete or technically incorrect. Here's a repost of my original post. ** Begin Original Post * It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical response to submit to the FCC. End Original Post * NOWHERE did I say that the licensed frequency bands are not important to WISPS. Licensed backhauls are very important to WISPs. WISPs SHOULD use licensed backhauls wherever interference levels are high, where reliability is crucial, where throughput needs are high, and/or where full duplex links are needed. NOWHERE did I say that the focus of the group should be limited to unlicensed frequencies only. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, I will restate each original paragraph and I will list the questions that each paragraph is implicitly asking. *** PARAGRAPH 1 - It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. In other words, we need to know the minimum dish size now and we need to know what dish sizes FiberTower is proposing before we can begin to understand if there is any affect on us and before we can formulate our position. QUESTION: SO WHAT ARE THOSE DISH SIZES NOW, BEFORE A RULES CHANGE AND AFTER THE PROPOSED RULES CHANGE? QUESTION: WHAT'S THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, ON US IF THE FCC ALLOWS SMALLER DISH SIZES TO BE USED? QUESTION: ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, WHAT POSITION SHOULD WE TAKE BEFORE THE FCC? ** PARAGRAPH 2 - I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. QUESTION: DOES A REDUCTION IN DISH SIZE REALLY AFFECT US? QUESTION: HOW DOES IT REALLY AFFECT US? ARE 11 GHz FREQUENCIES CURRENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY IN THE AREAS WHERE MOST WISPs OPERATE? QUESTION: HAS ANY WISP EVER BEEN DENIED A LICENSE FOR AN 11 GHz FREQUENCY? IF SO, WHERE? HOW OFTEN HAS THIS HAPPENED? QUESTION: ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE THE FCC THAT WE NEED TO DEVOTE OUR TIME AND ENERGY TO? WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES? WHITE SPACE? WISPS AS AN INFORMATION SERVICE? FCC's BROADBAND SERVICES SURVEY? CALEA? OTHERS?? * PARAGRAPH 3 - I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them anyway. QUESTION - IF ALLOWING SMALLER DISH SIZES WAS GOING TO CREATE INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS WOULDN'T THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE 11 GHz EQUIPMENT BE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES BECAUSE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THEM SELLING FEWER LICENSED 11 GHz LINKS AND HAVING HIGHER CUSTOMER SUPPORT COSTS? *** PARAGRAPH 4 - Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical response to submit to the FCC. QUESTION - DO WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE TO REALLY KNOW WHAT THE TRUE EFFECTS OF ALLOWING SMALLER DISH SIZES WILL BE? QUESTION - A SMALLER ANTENNA WILL HAVE LARGER SIDELOBES. IS THIS REALLY AN ISSUE OR ARE 11 GHz ANTENNAS NORMALLY MOUNTED WITH A FEW FEET OF VERTICAL SEPARATION ANYWAY SO THAT A MARGINAL INCREASE IN SIDELOBES WILL REALLY HAVE NO IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE ANYWAY? QUESTION - SHOULD THE FCC GIVE ANY WEIGHT OR CREDIBILITY TO OUR OPINIONS AND OUR GUESSES OR SHOULD THEY ONLY GIVE WEIGHT TO REAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS? QUESTION - WHO IN WISPA IS AN ENGINEER AND HAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED, ENGINEERED, AND DEPLOYED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF 11 GHz LINKS? SURELY SOMEONE HAS... WHO IS THAT PERSON? WILL THEY STEP UP AND DO SOME REAL
