[WISPA] MobiTV to Link Cable DVRs to Phones
Let us hope that the cable companies will also eat the bandwidth that will be involved in this. I have a TIVO attached to a Slingbox and use my cell (Sprint 6700) to watch DC programming anywhere I can get an EVDO signal or Wi-Fi, but it is a real bandwidth hog. ___ MobiTV to Link Cable DVRs to Phones Service Could Be Offered As Part of Sprint Nextel Joint Venture with Cable Operators By Todd Spangler & David Cohen 3/27/2007 8:40:00 PM Orlando, Fla. -- MobiTV CEO Phillip Alvelda said the mobile-technology provider is developing a way for cable operators to let subscribers stream programming stored on their digital-video recorders to mobile phones. The DVR-to-mobile service could be offered as part of the four operators' joint venture with Sprint Nextel, which announced Pivot as the new brand name for their mobile-wireless packages Monday at the CTIA Wireless 2007 convention here. However, according to Sprint spokeswoman Melinda Tiemeyer, the Sprint-Cable JV doesn't currently have a DVR-to-mobile-phone feature on its road map. "When we get to that point there are going to be a lot of different people involved, not just MobiTV," she said in a voice-mail message. Alvelda said MobiTV has been working with Scientific Atlanta and Motorola to integrate the DVR functions in their set-tops with the MobiTV infrastructure for sending TV signals over wireless carriers' networks. The service will be similar to what Sling Media offers with SlingPlayer Mobile, which lets a user watch live or recorded TV on a mobile device. "Except," added Alvelda, "we're paying people for the programming." Ultimately, MobiTV expects to be able to stream TV content from 20 million digital set-top boxes that have DVRs in the networks of the four operators -- Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Bright House Networks. "It's just a software upgrade," Alvelda said. Alternatively, he added, the cable industry may develop a network-based DVR system that could provide the same streaming-to-mobile feature as long as programmers give their consent. A federal court last week ruled that Cablevision Systems' network-DVR violated copyright laws in a suit brought by major broadcasters and cable programmers. As for pricing and availability, Alvelda said that would be up to the individual operators. Bright House and Time Warner declined to comment on their plans; Comcast and Cox did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MobiTV provides what it internally calls "MSO TV" to the members of the Sprint JV. The programming, which the operators offer in different tiers, includes ABC News, Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, The Weather Channel, Bloomberg, Fuse, E! News and ESPN highlights. Using the Sprint wireless network, Comcast offers mobile service in Boston and Portland, Ore.; Cox in San Diego and Phoenix, and Time Warner in Raleigh, N.C., Austin, Texas, and Cincinnati. Bright House hasn't announced when or where it will launch mobile service. The MSOs haven't talked about the ability to watch DVR content on phones, but they've touted other features that integrate with cable services, such as accessing TV listings through their mobile phones and checking home e-mail on the mobile phones. In other MobiTV news, the company announced a mobile-advertising alliance with Yahoo, whereby the Internet giant will be the ad-network partner for MobiTV's mobile-video-advertising sales and delivery, providing access to a one-stop, fully integrated mobile-media buy across all advertising modes, including text, banner and mobile video. Yahoo launched its Yahoo! Mobile Publisher Services Tuesday. MobiTV, based in Emeryville, Calif., now has about 250 employees. The privately held company doesn't disclose finances. Its backers include Adobe Systems, Hearst, Oak Investment Partners, Menlo Ventures, Redpoint Ventures and Gefinor Ventures. MobiTV offers 35 TV channels in the United States, with distribution partners that include Sprint and AT&T, which offers MobiTV programming through Cingular Wireless and AT&T Broadband TV. David T. Hughes Director, Corporate Communications Roadstar Internet Leesburg, VA 20175 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] why join ... a rant
Peter R. wrote: I haven't joined yet either. Three reasons: (1) I would have to join as a vendor, since I am a consultant - and I can't as yet see the ROI. I can see that. If people here do not pay you enough to pay your dues then why would you join? i guess there could be an argument though that you may get more sales if the option is made available for you to openly market what you sell to WISPs. Now you have to embed your offerings within posts to try to make sure you do not spam the group. We do also offer a $100 per year Associate level membership. I am sure that is justifiable to anyone who has an interest in seeing this industry prosper. (2) I see the similarities here to another group that I belonged to ... and I don't want to go down that path again. I do not know the details and don't need to know. That is your own issue. (3) I have a real problem with joining a group where participants pick and choose what laws and regulations they will and will not follow - and try to rally people to oppose such laws. Opposing laws and promoting breaking those laws are two different things. WISPA will officially support that we should always follow the law. We will also tell people when we think that laws need opposition, reform, challenges, changes. In the future I want to see us actually play a role in removing or easing regulatory and law issues. We are trying to make CALEA compliance easier for WISPs. That does not mean we agree with everything involved in how this law is being mandated for WISPs. WISPA could and should work toward vocally supporting changes in laws when we feel they work to the detriment of our mission. Now you can argue all day about whether I am right or wrong in this viewpoint, but that is MY perspective and you cannot change that no matter how much arguing you do. You are entitled to feel however you want. WISPA is what it is. The members who pay the dues, run for office and meet with regulators, etc. decide who we are and what we stand for. The rest here are an audience who are here as guests supported by the paid members of WISPA. WISPA is here to help and our members have made the resources here possible and they deserve some level of respect for this at a minimum. Anyone who uses these resources can and should see enough value to buy into some level of membership. That is my belief and nobody will change that. :-) Let's use a real world analogy. Let's say this was a NASCAR list. And I got a speeding ticket on I-4 going 88 in a 70 when there were maybe 5 cars on that stretch of straight, flat plain, 3-lane highway. And I moan about the ticket and how unfair it was. "It was entrapment. The cop was in a unmarked car hidden behind a concrete barrier. So what if I was speeding! There was no one around. Blah blah blah." It's a banal argument and a waste of bytes - and an admission of guilt. This is a public list made up of more than paid members. It is an open public forum for free thinking and censoring is no part of the plan here. Thanks, Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. Blair Davis wrote: On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- 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 another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. Can you please share your thoughts on where you think WISPA should stand on these issues? This is public list and your feedback is appreciated. That being the case, why should I still join? Because you can be as much a part of the direction of WISPA as any one else who is a member. Why would you ignore that opportunity to shape your industry? Scriv -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- 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
The truth is we need qualified RF engineers to speak up if they are here. It is my limited RF engineering knowledge which has always led me to believe that F/D Ratio (Focal Length to Diameter Ratio) which determines the beamwidth of the focused RF beam including the spread of the spurious side lobes in microwave parabolic dish antenna systems. If that is the case then the F/D ratio (not the diameter) should be the root of the discussion. The truth is though that I am NOT an RF engineer and therefore not truly qualified to make any genuine comment on the issue until I hear more from engineers who know. If this group wants to devote resources to this issue I am sure we could setup a committee to work on 11 GHz dish size issues. I am just seeing this as a minor issue. I am sorry to those out there who think this makes me short-sighted. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: Brad, I see how my original comment could have been misinterpreted. There was an element of "I don't have time for this". Now that I've taken the time (that I didn't have) and (hopefully) asked the right questions, I think it's time for others to follow up if they feel it's an important issue. Personally, I'm not worried at this point about allowing smaller 11 GHz antennas. I don't think it's going to cause us any problems with frequency availability. I think 11 GHz frequencies will be available when they are needed. FiberTower's investors include American Tower, Crown Castle and SpectraSite. I can't believe that those companies would want to do anything to "screw up" either the availability of frequencies or the sale of "vertical real estate" on their tower properties. Have a good day, jack Brad Belton wrote: Hello Jack, Good to see you're back on track with, IMO, a proper response to the 11GHz question/concerns. Your initial comment came off as who cares and we don't have time for this. John simply dittoed your comments, so what was the group left to believe? I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. Your questions/response below illustrate the type of post I would have expected from you in the first place. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: 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? ***
RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Hello John, Read Jack's follow up and you'll see where I (and possibly a few others) were coming from. It is easily plausible to misunderstand Jack's intent and Jack acknowledged there was an "I don't have time for this" element to his original post. No harm no foul. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:54 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Brad, Jack and I did not say this is something WISPA should ignore. Read what Jack said and I agreed with. I own an AWS license myself so trust me when I say I believe licensed interests can match our own. I just do not agree with your assessment that this is a big issue for WISPA to devote time, energy and resources to right now UNLESS we have more information about what is at stake, how it effects us, how we can and should work to work on this issue. Brad, the answer here is for YOU or someone else to take this issue on and show us why it is an issue for our involvement. I do not support constant "knee-jerk" reactionary policy initiatives. We need to have some degree of focus and purpose beyond just slapping comments on top of other people's petitions for changes. Maybe if we start actually studying the issues and making informed and targeted policy initiatives then we can actually start drafting petitions of our own which will become the policy for our industry in the future as opposed to rapid fire commenting on other people's work all the time. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: >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-
Re: [WISPA] one-third of U.S. households have no Internet...and do not plan to get it
Remember this the next time someone tells you how "the US is behind in broadband". Scriv George Rogato wrote: 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
Brad, Jack and I did not say this is something WISPA should ignore. Read what Jack said and I agreed with. I own an AWS license myself so trust me when I say I believe licensed interests can match our own. I just do not agree with your assessment that this is a big issue for WISPA to devote time, energy and resources to right now UNLESS we have more information about what is at stake, how it effects us, how we can and should work to work on this issue. Brad, the answer here is for YOU or someone else to take this issue on and show us why it is an issue for our involvement. I do not support constant "knee-jerk" reactionary policy initiatives. We need to have some degree of focus and purpose beyond just slapping comments on top of other people's petitions for changes. Maybe if we start actually studying the issues and making informed and targeted policy initiatives then we can actually start drafting petitions of our own which will become the policy for our industry in the future as opposed to rapid fire commenting on other people's work all the time. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: 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 ad
Re: [WISPA] CALEA
I doubt that is the case. If the upstream is inline and can provide the data flow from a point of aggregation (upstream network connection) then the TTP hardware connected upstream should be compliant. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: 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" 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/
RE: [WISPA] hotspot
Looks good! The more I read of their info, the more intrigued I am. I have a lot of experience with big networks using Tropos mesh and this seems like some interesting competition. Isn't a Pronghorn a kind of sheep? Their "Computing Device" statement: http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/Pronghorn_Metro_FCC_DoC_Report.p df If anyone is curious about the testing for computing devices, the procedure, including photos, that was used to test this piece of equipment is at the following URL: http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/Pronghorn_Metro_FCC_DoC_Report.p df In this document http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/Pronghorn_Metro_Product_Brief.pd f They say "FCC certified - Even customers choosing to build their own Pronghorn Metro INNs using RoamAD's Hardware Assembly Guide are covered by ADI's certification." There you go... for all the build it yourselfers. Down on about page 6 of this document: http://www.roamad.com/roamad/files/RoamAD_Converged_Wireless_Solution_WNP1.5 v2006.pdf is a nice picture of the board with 4 PCI radios plugged in. There is another good picture further down showing the board and radios in a case. And not to get caught like Linksys did by not posting their Linux sources, they put them here: ftp://ftp.adiengineering.com/Archive/ I delved into this and it is amazing how much data is there. There is even a howto on compiling it yourself. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] hotspot Ralph wrote: > Hi Clint- > > There's another certification involved. Not just Part 15 for intentional > radiators, which is what the radio cards have to follow. The one I am > talking about is a different part of Part 15: Computing Devices. The one > where things are classified as Class A or B computing devices. Mikrotik > hasn't even had their boards tested or certified under this part. Maybe > they have a loophole in that they don't actually sell it in a case. But > whoever puts it in that case needs to have it tested if they are selling it. Your on the money Ralph. Fact is the software people have not been taking certification into consideration. Nobody has been doing anything about this. So they don't have any reason to. I think that times are changing and I'm pretty certain we will start to see certification happening more often. Some of the newer boards hitting the streets, ie: http://www.adiengineering.com/php-bin/ecomm4/productDisplay.php?category_id= 31&product_id=81 have been noise certified and the other good news is, some of the cards are being certified. Soon enough we'll see products coming from various resellers that are certified. We are slowly moving forward. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] hotspot
Ralph wrote: Hi Clint- There's another certification involved. Not just Part 15 for intentional radiators, which is what the radio cards have to follow. The one I am talking about is a different part of Part 15: Computing Devices. The one where things are classified as Class A or B computing devices. Mikrotik hasn't even had their boards tested or certified under this part. Maybe they have a loophole in that they don't actually sell it in a case. But whoever puts it in that case needs to have it tested if they are selling it. Your on the money Ralph. Fact is the software people have not been taking certification into consideration. Nobody has been doing anything about this. So they don't have any reason to. I think that times are changing and I'm pretty certain we will start to see certification happening more often. Some of the newer boards hitting the streets, ie: http://www.adiengineering.com/php-bin/ecomm4/productDisplay.php?category_id=31&product_id=81 have been noise certified and the other good news is, some of the cards are being certified. Soon enough we'll see products coming from various resellers that are certified. We are slowly moving forward. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] hotspot
Hi Clint- There's another certification involved. Not just Part 15 for intentional radiators, which is what the radio cards have to follow. The one I am talking about is a different part of Part 15: Computing Devices. The one where things are classified as Class A or B computing devices. Mikrotik hasn't even had their boards tested or certified under this part. Maybe they have a loophole in that they don't actually sell it in a case. But whoever puts it in that case needs to have it tested if they are selling it. It is really no different than something that happened back in the 80's. Remember when everyone and his brother was making PC clones? There were flip top cases and uncertified boards. The seller/integrators of these were being shut down and fined right and left. Their equipment was also confiscated. Let's imagine that the oscillator of your little uncertified routerboard puts out a nice spur on 121.5 or 243.0 MHz. (the aviation distress frequencies) and the FAA tracks you down. Yes, the FAA. The FCC doesn't control those frequencies. You can be "in a heap o trouble, boy". I'm sure the same old people will attack me and say the rules don't apply to them, bla-bla-bla, but we as an industry need to learn that the rules DO apply to us and be familiar with what we can and can't do. I don't like it any better than rest of you, but we can't make our own rules because we don't! Clint- You're right about the flexibility of DDWRT. I am impressed with it. They did a hell of a better job than Linksys did and obviously Linksys knows it, since they created an "L" version that appears to be aimed right at the experimenters. Travis could keep the wireless off and probably be within certification. I think that the recommendation to him is pretty much the same from all of us: Put a portal between the existing wireless and the network. There are a lot of portals out there. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] hotspot Certification wouldn't matter on this; he's not looking to use any wireless functions on the product. It's a straight Ethernet based solution. DD-WRT may be controversial as a wireless solution, but it makes a pretty good router for a $50 device (IPTables, OSPF/BGP/RIP, PPTP VPN, IPSec VPN, Radius support, more). Wireless is only one portion of DD-WRT and can be turned off. There are also some commercial ones that keep the nice embeded aspects for a few hundred. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/29/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then why doesn't Mikrotik GET their boards FCC certified? I know it's cheap > but if 1000 of us WISPs spend $5k each to certify it, vs MT spending $5k > once and charging an extra 5 bucks, I'd rather do that. > > Annoying to say the least. > > - Original Message - > From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:22 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] hotspot > > > > You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of > > them. > > > > You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license. > > > > You can use a PC running Chillispot. > > > > Then, connect their existing Linksys APs. > > > > That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already > certified > > access points. > > > > Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are > > Part 15 certified in that configuration). > > > > Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT > > developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the > unit > > was certified using allows it to still maintain certification. You'll > > probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware > > allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved. > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM > > To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com > > Subject: [WISPA] hotspot > > > > Hi, > > > > We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some > > type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 > > or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. > > Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of > > people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, > > businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very > > basic authentication system (username / password). > > > > Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act > > more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? > > > > thanks, > > > > Travis > > Microserv .org/pipermail/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
Alan Cain wrote: And quoting unit prices is fully effective enough. One of my POPs has gone from 20 customers to 1 customer, as Qwest has aggressively targeted the area with phone calls to each (!) of my customers 4, 5 and 6 times a week, offering 1.7 Mbps service for 37.50/month. The contract is vaguely and worded in very fine print so no one gets that it is an introductory price, with miscellaneous services and taxes extra. Many will probably rue the day, but I can't hold on to that POP with one customer. And how the heck did they get so specific on the customer list? Do they offer a cut to judas goats? They do the same thing around here. What speeds and price were you offering that they picked of most of your subs? -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
George Rogato wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I agree with almost everything you said... except the "triple play" revenue... Qwest is doing a triple play system (Qwest DSL, Qwest VoIP and DirecTV) for $99 per month with $0 install. Also, I don't have a problem with 30-50 year ROI for fiber... but ClearWire is wireless... all the equipment will have to swapped out in 5 years. Travis Microserv Qwest is finally doing better. More dsl revenue. But I wonder what the 99.00 doesn't include and how much the total package costs, with extra charges. They never tell the total price, they just quote a unit price. And quoting unit prices is fully effective enough. One of my POPs has gone from 20 customers to 1 customer, as Qwest has aggressively targeted the area with phone calls to each (!) of my customers 4, 5 and 6 times a week, offering 1.7 Mbps service for 37.50/month. The contract is vaguely and worded in very fine print so no one gets that it is an introductory price, with miscellaneous services and taxes extra. Many will probably rue the day, but I can't hold on to that POP with one customer. And how the heck did they get so specific on the customer list? Do they offer a cut to judas goats? I begin to think the big guys are now starting the big squeeze. Oh, expletive deleted. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] hotspot
Certification wouldn't matter on this; he's not looking to use any wireless functions on the product. It's a straight Ethernet based solution. DD-WRT may be controversial as a wireless solution, but it makes a pretty good router for a $50 device (IPTables, OSPF/BGP/RIP, PPTP VPN, IPSec VPN, Radius support, more). Wireless is only one portion of DD-WRT and can be turned off. There are also some commercial ones that keep the nice embeded aspects for a few hundred. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/29/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then why doesn't Mikrotik GET their boards FCC certified? I know it's cheap but if 1000 of us WISPs spend $5k each to certify it, vs MT spending $5k once and charging an extra 5 bucks, I'd rather do that. Annoying to say the least. - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] hotspot > You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of > them. > > You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license. > > You can use a PC running Chillispot. > > Then, connect their existing Linksys APs. > > That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already certified > access points. > > Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are > Part 15 certified in that configuration). > > Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT > developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the unit > was certified using allows it to still maintain certification. You'll > probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware > allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved. > > Ralph > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM > To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com > Subject: [WISPA] hotspot > > Hi, > > We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some > type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 > or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. > Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of > people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, > businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very > basic authentication system (username / password). > > Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act > more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? > > thanks, > > Travis > Microserv > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 3/28/2007 > > -- 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] hotspot
Then why doesn't Mikrotik GET their boards FCC certified? I know it's cheap but if 1000 of us WISPs spend $5k each to certify it, vs MT spending $5k once and charging an extra 5 bucks, I'd rather do that. Annoying to say the least. - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] hotspot > You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of > them. > > You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license. > > You can use a PC running Chillispot. > > Then, connect their existing Linksys APs. > > That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already certified > access points. > > Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are > Part 15 certified in that configuration). > > Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT > developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the unit > was certified using allows it to still maintain certification. You'll > probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware > allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved. > > Ralph > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM > To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com > Subject: [WISPA] hotspot > > Hi, > > We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some > type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 > or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. > Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of > people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, > businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very > basic authentication system (username / password). > > Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act > more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? > > thanks, > > Travis > Microserv > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 3/28/2007 > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way
Ralph wrote: Saw it on TV last night. Good job. Thanks, we have another announcement forthcoming as we expand the project. -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] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way
Saw it on TV last night. Good job. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] hotspot
You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of them. You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license. You can use a PC running Chillispot. Then, connect their existing Linksys APs. That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already certified access points. Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are Part 15 certified in that configuration). Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the unit was certified using allows it to still maintain certification. You'll probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] hotspot Hi, We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very basic authentication system (username / password). Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way
2 questions Matt. What cameras are you using. and How did you become one of the largest wireless providers in the nation? Matt Liotta wrote: Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way Next Generation Wireless Technology Puts Eyes on Mean Streets ATLANTA (March 28, 2007) – It’s the intersection of cutting-edge technology and the desire to reduce crime in Atlanta that brought together Atlanta Police and wireless network provider One Ring Networks. Today the Atlanta Police Foundation hosted a press conference to announce the deployment of surveillance cameras throughout downtown to better monitor high-crime areas and provide quicker response. “The surveillance program is made possible by relatively new wireless technology that provides high bandwidth communications beyond what copper-based services offer and at a much lower cost,” said Matt Liotta, CEO of One Ring Networks. “Fixed wireless communications affords the ability to relay video images from cameras in awkward places where traditional broadband carriers can’t reach. That video feed is then routed back to monitors observed by Atlanta Police.” There are now approximately 12 video cameras in place throughout downtown to help Atlanta Police and better monitor the most dangerous areas of the city. The cameras have already played a major role in reducing crime. About One Ring Networks One Ring Networks operates one of the largest hybrid fiber-fixed wireless networks in the United States and is one of the few carriers offering end-to-end telecommunications and networking services without relying on other companies’ networks. Over its next generation network, One Ring offers high-speed data services, feature-rich IP phone services, IP telephony infrastructure, integration and management, and network monitoring and management. For more information, go to www.oneringnetworks.com. ### -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way
So... what kind of cameras are you using, Matt? Matt Liotta wrote: Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way Next Generation Wireless Technology Puts Eyes on Mean Streets ATLANTA (March 28, 2007) – It’s the intersection of cutting-edge technology and the desire to reduce crime in Atlanta that brought together Atlanta Police and wireless network provider One Ring Networks. Today the Atlanta Police Foundation hosted a press conference to announce the deployment of surveillance cameras throughout downtown to better monitor high-crime areas and provide quicker response. “The surveillance program is made possible by relatively new wireless technology that provides high bandwidth communications beyond what copper-based services offer and at a much lower cost,” said Matt Liotta, CEO of One Ring Networks. “Fixed wireless communications affords the ability to relay video images from cameras in awkward places where traditional broadband carriers can’t reach. That video feed is then routed back to monitors observed by Atlanta Police.” There are now approximately 12 video cameras in place throughout downtown to help Atlanta Police and better monitor the most dangerous areas of the city. The cameras have already played a major role in reducing crime. About One Ring Networks One Ring Networks operates one of the largest hybrid fiber-fixed wireless networks in the United States and is one of the few carriers offering end-to-end telecommunications and networking services without relying on other companies’ networks. Over its next generation network, One Ring offers high-speed data services, feature-rich IP phone services, IP telephony infrastructure, integration and management, and network monitoring and management. For more information, go to www.oneringnetworks.com. ### -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way
Atlanta Police and One Ring Networks Team Up To Fight Crime the Hi-tech Way Next Generation Wireless Technology Puts Eyes on Mean Streets ATLANTA (March 28, 2007) – It’s the intersection of cutting-edge technology and the desire to reduce crime in Atlanta that brought together Atlanta Police and wireless network provider One Ring Networks. Today the Atlanta Police Foundation hosted a press conference to announce the deployment of surveillance cameras throughout downtown to better monitor high-crime areas and provide quicker response. “The surveillance program is made possible by relatively new wireless technology that provides high bandwidth communications beyond what copper-based services offer and at a much lower cost,” said Matt Liotta, CEO of One Ring Networks. “Fixed wireless communications affords the ability to relay video images from cameras in awkward places where traditional broadband carriers can’t reach. That video feed is then routed back to monitors observed by Atlanta Police.” There are now approximately 12 video cameras in place throughout downtown to help Atlanta Police and better monitor the most dangerous areas of the city. The cameras have already played a major role in reducing crime. About One Ring Networks One Ring Networks operates one of the largest hybrid fiber-fixed wireless networks in the United States and is one of the few carriers offering end-to-end telecommunications and networking services without relying on other companies’ networks. Over its next generation network, One Ring offers high-speed data services, feature-rich IP phone services, IP telephony infrastructure, integration and management, and network monitoring and management. For more information, go to www.oneringnetworks.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] Phone Cos Eye Largest US Government Telecom Contract Ever
sigh Let the dang government shop the best local service that they can find! Gotta love paying taxes in only to have the money spent everywhere else. marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:25 PM Subject: [WISPA] Phone Cos Eye Largest US Government Telecom Contract Ever http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22625.php Four major telephone companies are eagerly eyeing a long-term government contract worth as much as US$48 billion, making it the largest telecom contract ever. The GSA's Networx Universal program will give the winning companies a 10-year contract to provide telecommunications and networking services such as voice, video and data to all federal agencies. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
My suggest was, that we should support this but suggest that they mandate atpc. thoughts? marlon - Original Message - From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Hello Marlon, Sure, low power levels may work for those that adhere to the rules. Unfortunately I don't believe this rule change request mentions lowering power levels for smaller antennas. I do believe the band that is best suited for the application should be used and not open up all bands for every application. I can only imagine what a mess that would make of the airwaves. Yes, I agree emissions do not stop at each side of the link and continue beyond, but I'd rather deal with a direct inline issue than one that is several degrees off axis and shouldn't be there in the first place. Again, the point I trying to make is use the correct tool for the job. 11GHz is not the correct tool for a 100' link. Just because you can turn a bolt with a pair of vise grips doesn't mean you are using the right tool for the job. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz And exactly HOW do you suppose that a very low power link will somehow screw up the band? Using higher power kills off everything on BOTH ends of the link. The signal doesn't just stop, it continues on past the rec. antenna. Your argument make no sense to me. Not from a frequency reuse standpoint. Also, what should we be pushing? MAXIMUM utilization for all bands. The rules for 11 gig and 6 gig cut down on the utilization and therefore waste a natural resource. I live on the farm. We use every drop of farmable ground. We plant the crops that grow the best out here and are always looking for new ones. Should be the same for wireless spectrum. Use up every drop. THEN, IF there's a problem, figure out how to deal with it. marlon - Original Message - From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Marlon, 11GHz is intended for medium to long range links. That is why they require a relatively larger antenna to keep the beam narrow to increase the freq reuse ability. 6GHz requires a 6' minimum antenna and this is a GOOD thing otherwise there would be fewer 6GHz licenses available in any given geographic area. If you have a 100' link then by all means use an 80-90GHz licensed link or even sub-lease a 38GHz license. Or use FOS or 60GHz or 24GHz for 100' links, but 11GHz for a 100' shot is a waste and not a good use of the band. Opening 11GHz to smaller dishes means more chance the band will be "used up" by short links that could have been achieved with the same (or even better) results by using a higher freq band. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I TOTALLY disagree with that. On two fronts. First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap! Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up? I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away. It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin. And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that! Luckily they turned the power way down and my problem went away. With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened. Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse. laters, 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: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for short haul applications. Best, Brad -Or
Re: [WISPA] hotspot
Your cheapest option is running DD-WRT (http://dd-wrt.com) and Chillispot (http://www.chillispot.org/). m0n0wall also does captive portal for cheap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal has a good list of captive portals I'm not sure whether it works in a bridging scenario, though; that would be ideal. Anyone tried taking routing out of the picture with DD-WRT and doing chillispot with simple bridging/switching? Thanks, -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very basic authentication system (username / password). Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] McCaw losing money?
I agree with almost everything you said... except the "triple play" revenue... Qwest is doing a triple play system (Qwest DSL, Qwest VoIP and DirecTV) for $99 per month with $0 install. Their introductory price is $99 per month, but they are most likely counting on people bumping up a tier in DSL service and TV packages... Also, I don't have a problem with 30-50 year ROI for fiber... but ClearWire is wireless... all the equipment will have to swapped out in 5 years. True enough, and that makes wireless somewhat an oddball. In this case, there is some analogy to their use of licensed spectrum, which is analogous to an extent to a physical medium. Does anyone know off the top of their head what platform they are using? I know Intel is partnering with them, but I've not followed them very closely. I'm kinda curious what their technology cycle will be -Clint Travis Microserv Clint Ricker wrote: > Just some general thoughts on large corporations, financing, and > business. While Peter's analysis about silos and funding sources is > right on, I'm going to skirt that discussion because it isn't a > meaningful discussion on a superficial level. > > How do they make money? (Well, if they do make money--some don't). > > 1. Long term investments: While, in some respects the thirty year > cycle doesn't work for Internet, in other respects it does, especially > when you are talking transport. True, the equipment may need to > change--but, fiber invested in now will be monetizable for the next 50 > years. > > While I don't think that 10-20 year ROI is practical (or smart) for > most smaller companies, many smaller players do hamstring themselves > by only looking at models that can be profitable in 3-6 months. > Financing may be needed, but it is often worth it. A good example to > this is CLECs that took the easy money for several years and never > made any long-term investments (I'm sure Peter can supply some details > about the networks that were never built, despite billions of dollars > that came and went). > > 2. Long term loans: I'm seperating this out, but it is tied into the > long term investments. Sure, fiber layed today may take 5 years to > pay for itself. But, if it is paid for out of a 15 year loan, it can > be "profitable" from day one. > > 3. Better monetization: (More upsells). Take a look at your phone, > cable, and cell bills, and think about how much of that is upsold from > "basic" service. Basic cable costs $20; yet most people have packages > costs $50 or more. Basic cell phone service is $35-45, but many pay > closer to $100+. In other words, they get 2x-3x the revenue for > additional services that don't really cost them anything. > > A good example of this is Verizon's FiOS buildout, which I gather > Peter is quite sceptical of. $23 billion dollars by 2010; but only > 200,000 customers by the end of 2006. On the surface, this does seem > to be a little unprofitable for the next few years, but I'm not so > sure... > > A good triple play customer can net a company an average of $125-$150 > per month in revenue. This means, over the course of 10 years, that > customer is worth $15,000! Those 200,000 customers, by 2015, will > have paid Verizon a total of $3 billion dollars; given the reach of > Verizon's buildout; those 200,000 customers are just a drop in the > bucket. Given that Verizon can get long term loans on these projects; > it can be "profitable" pretty early on. It may blow up in their face, > given competition--but, I actually think they are in good shape > considering how versitile fiber is; their network expansion will serve > them for decades to come with only hardware upgrades necessary to > squeeze more out of the fiber. > > Anyway, I digress :). I just know the Verizon numbers a little > better, so it makes a clearer example. But, given that Clearwire is > hoping to squeeze more than $50 ARPU from this ($600 per year) > (combined voip/data), will eventually have more or less nationwide > service with the ability to truly take on cellular networks in a big > way, and so forth, $180 customer acquisiton cost is not a bad deal. > Vonage pays more than that per customer acquisiton and only gets $300 > ARPU at best--but then, they are also not doing so well financially :) > > -Clint > > > On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The problem with that is eventually all of those income sources (IPO, >> credit line, investors, etc.) dry up... and then you are left with >> revenue to try and pay all the others (hardware, long term and monthly >> debt, etc.). It can work, but I just don't see it in this industry. With >> $30/month accounts (with little or no add-ons that the cell companies >> used to have like vmail, long-distance, over-minute usage fees, etc.) >> there just isn't that much profit. >> >> The other difference is most telco's (and even cell companies) operate >> on a 30 year ROI. That just doesn't work in the internet world.
RE: [WISPA] ot OE links
Look at: http://www.fjsmjs.com/OE/nolinks.htm This will fix your problem... HTH.. Ty Carter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ot OE links Hi All, My laptop will no longer go to a link when clicked on via email. In OE if I click on a link it won't go there unless I copy and paste the link into a browser. I have a customer with that problem too. I'll be darned if I can find the setting that got changed to cause it. Any ideas? thanks marlon -- 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] hotspot
Hi, We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very basic authentication system (username / password). Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ot OE links
Many Microsoft programs use common routines to provide functions (so they don't replicate them in each program). These show up as SVCHOST in the task-manager, and perform a variety of functions such as right-click menus, launching windows, opening links, etc. Some 3rd party applications have been known to interfere with windows ability to launch SVCHOST routines, causing a variety of seemingly unrelated maladies; what you reported being just one. It ain't difficult to figure out if an application is interfering with windows SVCHOST operation (and which one) but typically simply uninstalling the interfering program returns windows operation to normal. Had this happen to me, and it was as simple as uninstalling a paint program (Micrografix picture publisher 10) ... but figuring out that this application had a conflict was the hard part. Rich - Original Message - From: Pete Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot OE links There is a reg hack to fix that, but the easiest way I have found is to install or reinstall a browser (thunderbird or opera or whatever). When it finishes, and launches for the first time, it will ask if its the default browser, say yes. You can change back to IE or whatever, but the registry settings that say open "http://whatever.whatever"; to open in a browser will get rewritten and reset when you do that. pd Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > Hi All, > > My laptop will no longer go to a link when clicked on via email. In > OE if I click on a link it won't go there unless I copy and paste the > link into a browser. > > I have a customer with that problem too. I'll be darned if I can find > the setting that got changed to cause it. > > Any ideas? > thanks > marlon > -- 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] Phone deal goes to Qwest, AT&T, Verizon
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_bi_ge/telecom_contract;_ylt=Ah3Q.tj.l235OOssbNwlDBF34T0D Qwest Communications International Inc., AT&T Inc. and Verizon Inc. on Thursday were awarded the government's largest telecommunications contract ever, a 10-year deal worth up to $48 billion. I bet they get CALEA reimbursement. George Rogato wrote: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/22625.php Four major telephone companies are eagerly eyeing a long-term government contract worth as much as US$48 billion, making it the largest telecom contract ever. The GSA's Networx Universal program will give the winning companies a 10-year contract to provide telecommunications and networking services such as voice, video and data to all federal agencies. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
Travis Johnson wrote: I agree with almost everything you said... except the "triple play" revenue... Qwest is doing a triple play system (Qwest DSL, Qwest VoIP and DirecTV) for $99 per month with $0 install. Also, I don't have a problem with 30-50 year ROI for fiber... but ClearWire is wireless... all the equipment will have to swapped out in 5 years. Travis Microserv Qwest is finally doing better. More dsl revenue. But I wonder what the 99.00 doesn't include and how much the total package costs, with extra charges. They never tell the total price, they just quote a unit price. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
I agree with almost everything you said... except the "triple play" revenue... Qwest is doing a triple play system (Qwest DSL, Qwest VoIP and DirecTV) for $99 per month with $0 install. Also, I don't have a problem with 30-50 year ROI for fiber... but ClearWire is wireless... all the equipment will have to swapped out in 5 years. Travis Microserv Clint Ricker wrote: Just some general thoughts on large corporations, financing, and business. While Peter's analysis about silos and funding sources is right on, I'm going to skirt that discussion because it isn't a meaningful discussion on a superficial level. How do they make money? (Well, if they do make money--some don't). 1. Long term investments: While, in some respects the thirty year cycle doesn't work for Internet, in other respects it does, especially when you are talking transport. True, the equipment may need to change--but, fiber invested in now will be monetizable for the next 50 years. While I don't think that 10-20 year ROI is practical (or smart) for most smaller companies, many smaller players do hamstring themselves by only looking at models that can be profitable in 3-6 months. Financing may be needed, but it is often worth it. A good example to this is CLECs that took the easy money for several years and never made any long-term investments (I'm sure Peter can supply some details about the networks that were never built, despite billions of dollars that came and went). 2. Long term loans: I'm seperating this out, but it is tied into the long term investments. Sure, fiber layed today may take 5 years to pay for itself. But, if it is paid for out of a 15 year loan, it can be "profitable" from day one. 3. Better monetization: (More upsells). Take a look at your phone, cable, and cell bills, and think about how much of that is upsold from "basic" service. Basic cable costs $20; yet most people have packages costs $50 or more. Basic cell phone service is $35-45, but many pay closer to $100+. In other words, they get 2x-3x the revenue for additional services that don't really cost them anything. A good example of this is Verizon's FiOS buildout, which I gather Peter is quite sceptical of. $23 billion dollars by 2010; but only 200,000 customers by the end of 2006. On the surface, this does seem to be a little unprofitable for the next few years, but I'm not so sure... A good triple play customer can net a company an average of $125-$150 per month in revenue. This means, over the course of 10 years, that customer is worth $15,000! Those 200,000 customers, by 2015, will have paid Verizon a total of $3 billion dollars; given the reach of Verizon's buildout; those 200,000 customers are just a drop in the bucket. Given that Verizon can get long term loans on these projects; it can be "profitable" pretty early on. It may blow up in their face, given competition--but, I actually think they are in good shape considering how versitile fiber is; their network expansion will serve them for decades to come with only hardware upgrades necessary to squeeze more out of the fiber. Anyway, I digress :). I just know the Verizon numbers a little better, so it makes a clearer example. But, given that Clearwire is hoping to squeeze more than $50 ARPU from this ($600 per year) (combined voip/data), will eventually have more or less nationwide service with the ability to truly take on cellular networks in a big way, and so forth, $180 customer acquisiton cost is not a bad deal. Vonage pays more than that per customer acquisiton and only gets $300 ARPU at best--but then, they are also not doing so well financially :) -Clint On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem with that is eventually all of those income sources (IPO, credit line, investors, etc.) dry up... and then you are left with revenue to try and pay all the others (hardware, long term and monthly debt, etc.). It can work, but I just don't see it in this industry. With $30/month accounts (with little or no add-ons that the cell companies used to have like vmail, long-distance, over-minute usage fees, etc.) there just isn't that much profit. The other difference is most telco's (and even cell companies) operate on a 30 year ROI. That just doesn't work in the internet world. I guess only time will tell. Travis Microserv Peter R. wrote: > I've spent much of this year analyzing the financials of Vonage and > other companies. I just finished looking at VZ. > (http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/03/vz-spending-billions.html) > The numbers make no sense. But then under GAAP accounting its all > about putting your numbers in the proper silo and never changing. > > Where does the money come from? > Some of it is debt. > Some of it is hardware financing. > Some of it is IPO money. > Some of it is a credit line. > Some from investors. > A little from revenue. > > George Rogato wrote: > >> I think it's the money raised from the sale of stock. >> Because if the
Re: [WISPA] Need Coverage Help ... PA
Rick, a little far out of my reach. Sorry Dude! Rick Smith wrote: lol. I don't care if I make nothin off this one - I have to bill them. We're doing three of their stations up here in jersey - their fourth is in aston. they won't do any if we can't "do" them all. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:52 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Need Coverage Help ... PA Rick - it's only because you're a yankee but what half of the customer are you wanting in this split ? JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:49 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Cc: 'Principal WISPA Member List' Subject: [WISPA] Need Coverage Help ... PA Anyone cover this location and want to split a customer with me ? 12 Kent Road Aston, PA 19014 I imagine there's a tower on-site...it's a TV station. Let me know asap. R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
Just some general thoughts on large corporations, financing, and business. While Peter's analysis about silos and funding sources is right on, I'm going to skirt that discussion because it isn't a meaningful discussion on a superficial level. How do they make money? (Well, if they do make money--some don't). 1. Long term investments: While, in some respects the thirty year cycle doesn't work for Internet, in other respects it does, especially when you are talking transport. True, the equipment may need to change--but, fiber invested in now will be monetizable for the next 50 years. While I don't think that 10-20 year ROI is practical (or smart) for most smaller companies, many smaller players do hamstring themselves by only looking at models that can be profitable in 3-6 months. Financing may be needed, but it is often worth it. A good example to this is CLECs that took the easy money for several years and never made any long-term investments (I'm sure Peter can supply some details about the networks that were never built, despite billions of dollars that came and went). 2. Long term loans: I'm seperating this out, but it is tied into the long term investments. Sure, fiber layed today may take 5 years to pay for itself. But, if it is paid for out of a 15 year loan, it can be "profitable" from day one. 3. Better monetization: (More upsells). Take a look at your phone, cable, and cell bills, and think about how much of that is upsold from "basic" service. Basic cable costs $20; yet most people have packages costs $50 or more. Basic cell phone service is $35-45, but many pay closer to $100+. In other words, they get 2x-3x the revenue for additional services that don't really cost them anything. A good example of this is Verizon's FiOS buildout, which I gather Peter is quite sceptical of. $23 billion dollars by 2010; but only 200,000 customers by the end of 2006. On the surface, this does seem to be a little unprofitable for the next few years, but I'm not so sure... A good triple play customer can net a company an average of $125-$150 per month in revenue. This means, over the course of 10 years, that customer is worth $15,000! Those 200,000 customers, by 2015, will have paid Verizon a total of $3 billion dollars; given the reach of Verizon's buildout; those 200,000 customers are just a drop in the bucket. Given that Verizon can get long term loans on these projects; it can be "profitable" pretty early on. It may blow up in their face, given competition--but, I actually think they are in good shape considering how versitile fiber is; their network expansion will serve them for decades to come with only hardware upgrades necessary to squeeze more out of the fiber. Anyway, I digress :). I just know the Verizon numbers a little better, so it makes a clearer example. But, given that Clearwire is hoping to squeeze more than $50 ARPU from this ($600 per year) (combined voip/data), will eventually have more or less nationwide service with the ability to truly take on cellular networks in a big way, and so forth, $180 customer acquisiton cost is not a bad deal. Vonage pays more than that per customer acquisiton and only gets $300 ARPU at best--but then, they are also not doing so well financially :) -Clint On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem with that is eventually all of those income sources (IPO, credit line, investors, etc.) dry up... and then you are left with revenue to try and pay all the others (hardware, long term and monthly debt, etc.). It can work, but I just don't see it in this industry. With $30/month accounts (with little or no add-ons that the cell companies used to have like vmail, long-distance, over-minute usage fees, etc.) there just isn't that much profit. The other difference is most telco's (and even cell companies) operate on a 30 year ROI. That just doesn't work in the internet world. I guess only time will tell. Travis Microserv Peter R. wrote: > I've spent much of this year analyzing the financials of Vonage and > other companies. I just finished looking at VZ. > (http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/03/vz-spending-billions.html) > The numbers make no sense. But then under GAAP accounting its all > about putting your numbers in the proper silo and never changing. > > Where does the money come from? > Some of it is debt. > Some of it is hardware financing. > Some of it is IPO money. > Some of it is a credit line. > Some from investors. > A little from revenue. > > George Rogato wrote: > >> I think it's the money raised from the sale of stock. >> Because if the 180 doesn't leave any profit, what about all the radio >> and tv advertizing they do? >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscrib
[WISPA] testing - ignore
testing please ignore -- You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
