BIP applicants don't have to deal with this political dog-and-pony show (er.,
BS =)
-Charles
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of St. Louis Broadband
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:42 PM
To: li...@stlbroadband.com;
It's worth noting that the rules are a little different for middle mile
applicants than last mile applicants
e.g., for the middle mile -- one has to pre-set their wholesale bandwidth rates
and stay in accordance with the NOFA's non-discrimination rules per the
application
Keep in mind, if
In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to
provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the
masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband
is for their system.
If it's a middle mile application, they would be in
Well...operators in 2.5 GHz can put out up to 2 kW (E.g., 2000 Watts) EIRP at
the tower site, have a noise floor of -100 dBm which allows them to take full
advantage of more advanced technology, and in some cases, have access to almost
200 MHz of spectrum
Compare that to 900 MHz, where you're
They either lie or they legitimately dont know what they are doing.
Or maybe you don't know what is possible with licensed spectrum =)
For example, in the 2.5 GHz band, there are over 30 6 MHz channels available
(e.g., almost 200 MHz of spectrum) -- we have one customer that owns/leases
almost
Hi David,
While I applaud your efforts in being involved with the broadband stimulus, it
is my understanding that MVN.net is/was applying for stimulus funds for Round 1
-- maybe I'm missing something, but I can't figure out how you'd be able to
over-come the conflict of interest clauses?
Okay, so for the grant they MUST provide the bandwidth for the same price
they are paying for it??? But are they then able to throw a bunch of BS
fees on top of it? If they have to provide at the same price, then it's not
bad but I suspect it will be more cumbersome.
-Original
Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course.
Thanks!
Robert West
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-09-19-internet-rules-fcc_N.htm?csp=34
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Robert West
robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote:
Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course.
Thanks!
Robert West
Answers inline...
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided
their own TDD mac.
Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their
own proprietary MAC.
Do
It depends on what you're buying from them, but the basic answer is
no they do not have to sell at their cost.
If you're buying transit, you strike your own deal with the bandwidth
supplier. In that sense you're just paying cost on the bandwidth.
But, they have to determine the transit terms
It's back
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the
price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I
explained how it's net neutral.
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Saturday,
I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever.
I've had one fail in 10 years The factory was amazed and wanted it
back for analysis. They gave me a free one to replace it.
Marco
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote:
I'm not sure which
The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth.
Reasonable network management policies are allowed.
Robert West wrote:
Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the
price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I
explained
I've had one of three die on a tower a while back. Few months and
still waiting on my RMA number/replacement/acknowledgement of
existence.
On 9/19/09, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever.
I've had one fail in 10
Who's definition of unreasonable...
On 9/19/09, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth.
Reasonable network management policies are allowed.
Robert West wrote:
Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband
Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I
have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they
really work well.
Randy
--
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc
work: 435-773-6071
email: rco...@infowest.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby
Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new cheap stuff
ones ?
The expensive Alvarian VL uses a standard Atheros Chipset.
But Alvarion has its own MAC, which is the secret to its more robust
offering.
Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik
Yes, if its a licensed spectrum proposal, so can control noise floor, and
can design to operate at lower receive sensitivities, yes then my comment
does not apply.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wu
Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write
the laws and make the rules.
Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your
carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because
they didn't like what you had to say or what web
What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to
do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A
operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C,
or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in
The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still
available and not already sold to someon else.
Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless middle
mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has been sold
already.
Example:
Grant
The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any
Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to
say.
The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as
most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just
one
I feel I should be able to manage my network any way I see fit and if
someone doesn't like it move on... I think the larger providers should
have that same ability.
But, if laws like this continue I'll give my customers an option... I'll
let them choose between a 1mb up 1mb down they can do
I absolutely agree. The open access stuff really only has meaning for
us on fiber where total capacity is functionally unlimited in a new
build out.
Chuck
On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still
available and
Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and
companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under
the First Amendment. Fat chance.
I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start
ISP C (or B if no one else is
Mike Hammett wrote:
Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and
companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under
the First Amendment. Fat chance.
Free speech protections are exactly that - free speech protections. The
First
Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who
would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If
it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved,
moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high
bit rate streaming,
Hi John,
Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have
conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of
bandwidth and there is an issue of content.
On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing
bandwidth and limiting bandwidth
I've always limited by mb/s...
Looks like I'll be adding total connections and packets per sec
limiting as well.
I don't care where you go or what you do...
But overselling bandwidth is the only way people in rural areas
currently can afford high speed.
ps Jack Unger wrote:
Hi John,
Jack,
I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much
addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues.
I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are
reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that
free speech was at the
I must be missing something. What and how are ISP's blocking or
possibly blocking that may infringe on free speech? Certainly not PTP
traffic.
-RickG
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:14 PM, John Vogel jvo...@vogent.com wrote:
Jack,
I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much
2GHz or 5GHz?
We used the 5GHz adjustable's years ago, and their performance was awesome.
Just bought some of the 2GHz version to do some testing with. Not sure on
those yet.
Jayson
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote:
Anyone have any experience with
34 matches
Mail list logo
