Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
Yes, there is a full config on the wiki and some comments I wrote as I did the implementation. Butch's configuration is there. HE also has some of the configuration for MT on their website. On 1/16/2011 12:05 AM, Butch Evans wrote: On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of being in the forum. When I read what you wrote about how the HE tunnel is IPv4 as far as the MT router is concerned (that had escaped me). But I still would be interested to know if others are doing true IPv6 through the MT RB750/RB450. Greg, are you on the IPv6 mailing list? I posted a complete configuration there (very simple config) for MT with an HE tunnel. I believe that most of that post was put up on the member's wiki, though I can't be certain. It will work with any MT device (including 750). -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote: On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice. Obviously we have different opinions. If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only accessible via IPv6, they can tunnel out. Have you even tried explaining how to configure their email client? Explaining IPv6 would be much harder. You make my point. IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve anyway. The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF. Anyone wanting to put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is how the transition is planned to work. So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6. They won't know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites. Plus v6 is an abomination, a misdesign of immense proportions, so you shouldn't buy into Cisco's fantasies. Umm...IPv6 is not a Cisco fantasy. While I agree that there are some serious problems with the current implementation, I cannot say that it is a total waste. There are some security issues to be sure, but for the most part, it works and works well. It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse: Tastes worse, more filling. Yes, it works, but not as well as v4. Billions of dollars of transition cost will result in negligible improvement. Collossal waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* fix things that were really broken. In 1991, the public Internet didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern about massive cybercrime. But it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote: On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice. Obviously we have different opinions. Opinion isn't the key to this. It is FACT that IPv6 is here and WILL need to be implemented. There is, in the very near future, going to be some content that WILL be reachable via IPv6 only. It may not be this year or next, but ignore it and it will go away is bad advice. It isn't a matter of opinion. THAT was my point. You make my point. IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve anyway. The point is that WHEN content is reachable only via IPv6, whether via some transition mechanism or native implementation, customers WILL want it. Complexity isn't the problem. Your statement to let the customers worry with it is what I was addressing. Which non-problem are you referring to? Lack of currently allocatable space? The fact that there is still lots of unused (yet allocated) space really is an issue, whether you like it (or admit it) or not. And if that IS the issue you are referring to, IPv6 DOES address and fix that issue. The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF. Anyone wanting to put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is how the transition is planned to work. So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6. They won't know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites. So you are basing your opinions on the fact that since the content is unimportant to you, it is assumed to be unimportant to your customers? It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse: Tastes worse, more filling. Yes, it works, but not as well as v4. Billions of dollars of transition cost will result in negligible improvement. Collossal waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* fix things that were really broken. In 1991, the public Internet didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern about massive cybercrime. But it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Well, high horse aside, your advice to ignore it and it will go away seems to be nulled by this opinion that it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Perhaps you don't really believe that it will go away? If that is the case, why would you provide that as your advised approach? As a consultant, it seems to me that our advice should be published with the best interest of our customers in mind and not our personal beefs, which yours seems to be on this subject. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-09-10/ I think I missed Friday. While I agree v6 is a crap pile, it also is going to be implemented and far sooner then some people think. Not that my source is all authoritative on the subject, it was a conversation with a cellular tech support. His claim is that $employer will be moving to a v6 network asap. They already run deep NAT on everything have hundreds of complaints about broken VPNs daily (the same subject of my call). The crazy part of their network is that it was not even consistent NAting. One tower hands out 192.168.0.0/16's that then NAT to a 10.x then the public proxy, while down the road you skip the 192 and get a 10.x directly. On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote: On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice. Obviously we have different opinions. Opinion isn't the key to this. It is FACT that IPv6 is here and WILL need to be implemented. There is, in the very near future, going to be some content that WILL be reachable via IPv6 only. It may not be this year or next, but ignore it and it will go away is bad advice. It isn't a matter of opinion. THAT was my point. You make my point. IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve anyway. The point is that WHEN content is reachable only via IPv6, whether via some transition mechanism or native implementation, customers WILL want it. Complexity isn't the problem. Your statement to let the customers worry with it is what I was addressing. Which non-problem are you referring to? Lack of currently allocatable space? The fact that there is still lots of unused (yet allocated) space really is an issue, whether you like it (or admit it) or not. And if that IS the issue you are referring to, IPv6 DOES address and fix that issue. The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF. Anyone wanting to put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is how the transition is planned to work. So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6. They won't know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites. So you are basing your opinions on the fact that since the content is unimportant to you, it is assumed to be unimportant to your customers? It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse: Tastes worse, more filling. Yes, it works, but not as well as v4. Billions of dollars of transition cost will result in negligible improvement. Collossal waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* fix things that were really broken. In 1991, the public Internet didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern about massive cybercrime. But it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Well, high horse aside, your advice to ignore it and it will go away seems to be nulled by this opinion that it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Perhaps you don't really believe that it will go away? If that is the case, why would you provide that as your advised approach? As a consultant, it seems to me that our advice should be published with the best interest of our customers in mind and not our personal beefs, which yours seems to be on this subject. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
I must have missed something along the way. I keep seeing postings here that IPv6 is worthless, yet when I read the posts on NANOG, ARIN and IETF mail lists, it is a viable and in production protocol. So, would some one please post the *facts *that make IPv6 so bad. On 1/16/2011 2:51 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-09-10/ I think I missed Friday. While I agree v6 is a crap pile, it also is going to be implemented and far sooner then some people think. Not that my source is all authoritative on the subject, it was a conversation with a cellular tech support. His claim is that $employer will be moving to a v6 network asap. They already run deep NAT on everything have hundreds of complaints about broken VPNs daily (the same subject of my call). The crazy part of their network is that it was not even consistent NAting. One tower hands out 192.168.0.0/16's that then NAT to a 10.x then the public proxy, while down the road you skip the 192 and get a 10.x directly. On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Butch Evansbut...@butchevans.com wrote: On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote: On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice. Obviously we have different opinions. Opinion isn't the key to this. It is FACT that IPv6 is here and WILL need to be implemented. There is, in the very near future, going to be some content that WILL be reachable via IPv6 only. It may not be this year or next, but ignore it and it will go away is bad advice. It isn't a matter of opinion. THAT was my point. You make my point. IPv6 is needless complexity that doesn't solve the real problems while focusing on a non-problem that it doesn't solve anyway. The point is that WHEN content is reachable only via IPv6, whether via some transition mechanism or native implementation, customers WILL want it. Complexity isn't the problem. Your statement to let the customers worry with it is what I was addressing. Which non-problem are you referring to? Lack of currently allocatable space? The fact that there is still lots of unused (yet allocated) space really is an issue, whether you like it (or admit it) or not. And if that IS the issue you are referring to, IPv6 DOES address and fix that issue. The only folks who would put up an IPv6-only site are a) Chinese (and we don't really care), or b) zealots who think they are on a mission from some diety to follow the advice of the IETF. Anyone wanting to put up a site for the public will make it available on v4, and that is how the transition is planned to work. So the average Joe who calls up and asks about how to configure Windows Mail or what-have-you will have no need for v6. They won't know the difference, and won't need to connect to zealot sites. So you are basing your opinions on the fact that since the content is unimportant to you, it is assumed to be unimportant to your customers? It reminds me of the beer commercial, in reverse: Tastes worse, more filling. Yes, it works, but not as well as v4. Billions of dollars of transition cost will result in negligible improvement. Collossal waste, especially considering how they went out of their way to *not* fix things that were really broken. In 1991, the public Internet didn't exist yet, so it was all a little club with little concern about massive cybercrime. But it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Well, high horse aside, your advice to ignore it and it will go away seems to be nulled by this opinion that it will result in a lot of new box sales for Cisco. Perhaps you don't really believe that it will go away? If that is the case, why would you provide that as your advised approach? As a consultant, it seems to me that our advice should be published with the best interest of our customers in mind and not our personal beefs, which yours seems to be on this subject. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
It is a protocol wonk holy war :-) IPv6 is worse OSI is better Using the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better Does not matter to me because I have customers that need end-to-end connectivity to China and mobile data in the US (that is going native v6 with v4 NAT) so I'm deploying IPv6. There are certainty interesting aspects to the side Fred is on, as indicated, I believe, in this book: http://amzn.to/gHQDax. I'm still reading it so no comment there. They have interesting ideas but they would be better off building a overlay network stack ala Skype (P2P network stack, not the voip program) for app developers, IMO. The simple fact is I have customers that want IPv6 and they give me money to provide it. If someone wants to give me money to tunnel their NetBUI traffic over the internet I'll do that as well. On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote: I must have missed something along the way. I keep seeing postings here that IPv6 is worthless, yet when I read the posts on NANOG, ARIN and IETF mail lists, it is a viable and in production protocol. So, would some one please post the facts that make IPv6 so bad. On 1/16/2011 2:51 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-09-10/ I think I missed Friday. While I agree v6 is a crap pile, it also is going to be implemented and far sooner then some people think. Not that my source is all authoritative on the subject, it was a conversation with a cellular tech support. His claim is that $employer will be moving to a v6 network asap. They already run deep NAT on everything have hundreds of complaints about broken VPNs daily (the same subject of my call). The crazy part of their network is that it was not even consistent NAting. One tower hands out 192.168.0.0/16's that then NAT to a 10.x then the public proxy, while down the road you skip the 192 and get a 10.x directly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
On 01/16/2011 02:24 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: If there really does turn out to be *meaningful* content that can *only* be reached via v6, then gateways will exist. One form or other of a 4-to-6-NAT. Name-based services will help; using an IP address in the application layer is a capital-M Mistake in the current stack. So NAT is the answer to everything? SIGH. I can see that attempting to discuss this further with you will be fruitless and a waste of time. No, I didn't say customers should worry about it. Ummm, from YOUR message: If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only accessible via IPv6, they can tunnel out. Maybe I didn't interpret this correctly? Sounds to me that you DID say that. Since space is a non-problem, why spend so much to fix it? You are the only one with the opinion that available space is a non-problem. Use the space more efficiently. It's much cheaper and for that matter more secure. I'll not even attempt to have this NAT is secure argument with you. I know the truth and it will do little good to try to convince you. Efficiency aside (that is, after all the REAL purpose of NAT), there is no good reason to NAT. IPv6, even with all the inherent issues, WILL address the lack of space. Additionally, it is child's play to create an SPI firewall that mimics the security of NAT, even with public space. Let the market re-allocate existing v4 blocks. That has to happen anyway, *because* the transition requires dual-stack, probably for 10-20 years. (And by then I hope to have succeeded in getting an alternative available and accepted. I am working on it.) So your beef isn't Cisco, it's the fact that your preferred protocol lost? I knew that all along, but was waiting for you to say it outright. FWIW, I agree that TUBA was a MUCH better approach, but that isn't the world we live in. Also, even if the market reallocates existing space, we will not last 10+ years with the current growth rates. This is an argument that you have not won for the past 10 years, why would you expect us to bury our heads in the sand (ignore it and it will go away) with some confidence that you will win in the next 10 years? Yes, in one sense. Because anyone who wants their content to be available to the general pubilc *will* make it available in v4. But gateways will also exist, so a v4 user will be able to reach most v6-only content, if there's demand. And what about the reality that space IS limited (even if every unused IP block were returned, we'd only have a year or so at the MOST)? One of the *problems* in the current model is the inability to make networks *not* available to everyone. Think about that... host-based security isn't perfect. Power infrastructure, security, corporate data, etc. V6 doesn't really fix this. We will still need firewalls, which relay applications. NAT is your friend. NAT is not a security model. Sorry, but that's just fact. Even if you say it 10 times, it will STILL be fact. You can try 100 times, but I doubt it will change just because you say it. Good try, but not a valid argument. Proper security measures are still going to be needed (whether there is v4 or v6 with or without NAT). I understand the security implications, but NAT won't fix those under any circumstance. Huh? If everyone ignored it, then it would go the way of GOSIP. End users are tending to ignore it; it's the vendor community, and some ISPs, who are all atwitter about it. This is just ridiculous. Sure, if everyone ignored it, it WOULD go away. The problem is that the RIRs are right now handing out IP space from the v6 pool. It isn't being ignored. So, where does that leave you? Perhaps you can bury your head, but those of us in the real world should continue planning to transition our networks, since the world around us will be doing the same thing. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
I'm not going to tie up this list with a long protocol war, since this isn't the forum, but I'll answer a few questions. You can see some more stuff on my web site and especially the Pouzin Society site, but there will be more coming out later. At 1/16/2011 03:36 PM, JeromieR wrote: I must have missed something along the way. I keep seeing postings here that IPv6 is worthless, yet when I read the posts on NANOG, ARIN and IETF mail lists, it is a viable and in production protocol. So, would some one please post the facts that make IPv6 so bad. The facts that I'm concerned with begin with the fact that IPv4 itself has a lot of flaws. It was a nice experimental protocol for 1978, when v4 came out, but even then it carried on mistakes that were known by 1972. Starting with the fact that it addresses interfaces, not nodes or applications, and thus an IP address is really just a layer 2 address (hence multihoming often requires a separate AS, etc.). This was pure arrogance, copying from NCP something that was a quick expedient at th time (NCP, 1969) and treating it as revealed truth, though it was known to be problematic by the. The key problem with IPv6 is that they decided explicitly to NOT fix any of these things, and to ONLY fix the assumed address-shortage problem. And then they made it incompatible, so it's a really costly fix for little gain. They've been pushing hard to sell this turkey for 17 years now and only this Y2K-redux hysteria about IPv4 homestead address spaces is causing real interest. JonA added, It is a protocol wonk holy war :-) Yes. Heck, we've been having these since the 1970s, if not longer. Ever wonder why X.25 had so many options? IPv6 is worse OSI is better Using the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better Not sure where that comes from. OSI was a failed attempt at committee creation. It tried to have two incompatible factions work together, so it created its own split stack. The reference model also had a fatal flaw (layers 5 and 6; these were properly application layer functions) and while that was eventually (after anyone cared) fixed, the first (and last?) free implementation (Marsh Rose, The Open Book) got it wrong and it worked horribly. Much worse than Berkeley's free TCP/IP, which thus won. I'm not pushing OSI. For historical purposes, I note that TUBA was better, and it was based on the good part of OSI, but we're not proposing going back there. I am suggesting that RINA is a better long-term solution, and, most importantly, that it will be possible to adopt RINA easier than to transition to IPv6. We (John Day, really) designed RINA to be more compatible with IP than IPv6 is compatible with IPv4. Plus it's just a whole lot simpler, stack-wise, and does a whole lot more. Does not matter to me because I have customers that need end-to-end connectivity to China and mobile data in the US (that is going native v6 with v4 NAT) so I'm deploying IPv6. We still have to convince the cellcos that they're going the wrong way, but I suspect they'll be doing header compression, to save bits (= bandwidth, battery power). There are certainty interesting aspects to the side Fred is on, as indicated, I believe, in this book: http://amzn.to/gHQDax. I'm still reading it so no comment there. Yes, that's John Day's book, Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals. It lays out the principles behind RINA, which is the newer marketing name for what was being called PNA at the time of the book. They have interesting ideas but they would be better off building a overlay network stack ala Skype (P2P network stack, not the voip program) for app developers, IMO. I can't comment in public about who's doing what, but I can say that RINA works *above* IP (like Skype), so you can indeed use IP as a link layer for RINA applications, or to use RINA's encryption as an alternative to IPSec. You can also run RINA *below* IP, as an alternative to MPLS. Or in parallel, or gatewayed. Since the same three protocols form a layer that recurses, the protocols can fit into the customer stack wherever it's most useful. BTW, RINA solves the address problem directly. Only the application is addressed, not an interface *or* node. Addresses within a layer are hidden from the outside, assigned topologically, and are just local identifiers. In IP, the addresses are a per se layer violation, since they are used both to route on and as part of the upper layer connection identifier. The simple fact is I have customers that want IPv6 and they give me money to provide it. If someone wants to give me money to tunnel their NetBUI traffic over the internet I'll do that as well. Indeed; I like to design my transport networks, both fiber and radio, as layer 2 switched (not bridged), so that they can carry IPv4, IPv6, RINA, DECnet, NetBUEI, XNS, SNA... Rather than carry on a
Re: [WISPA] Connected Nation Rules
Matt, I commend your thoughts, and how you chose to write them. I always admire people who speak clearly, but from the heart. I would like to add something, or perhaps just explain why I think this industry will never become the domain of a few large players. Our industry requires a dedication to individual service. Many in the beginning wanted a box to plant on the desk, so that NO interaction with the customer was needed. Instead, we serve each customer individually. Our deployments require that we learn and plot our coverage and service in place, on the ground, interacting with local people. There is no large company that can do that.We CARE about our own business, because it IS our own business, and thus, we CARE about our customers, something you cannot ever pay someone to do. The employee who can be paid to care, is indeed...rare. Thus, we have entered an industry with a model based upon the highest ideal of business - that of true service. The flakes will fail, the greedy will fail, only those with a true concern for doing what needs to be done, in return for a modest paycheck will be successful. Some can instill or find that kind of employee to hire, but no HR department will accomplish it. I don't call us heroes... Certainly I am not anyone's hero. I'm a villain, when the power fails at 8 pm on a school night, and everyone's connection dies. But I do my best, and I really, DO care that someone needs and I have the means of meeting it, and so I get up and go out, missing my dinner, to get things back up and going. Any of you on this list who won't do that, you're the exception, not the rule. I can with confidence that you have a passion to do things for other people... And found a way to earn that paycheck... and meet the need. I believe very few of you are in this, solely for the money. And I disagree about our image... It should be a nameless, faceless guy, working out of his truck, doing the job for his neighbor, on a handshake. That's who we are, more than anything else. It's who we should sell ourselves as, and in doing so, gain our customer's loyalty, as we're loyal to them. Our business operations, and our treatment of customers should reflect that, as well. I don't have the answer for the problems in DC. I don't have the answer for how to get Congress and agencies to allow us to do what we know how to do, and have the answers for. I just think we should be on the offensive, not the defensive, and seek to change the nature of the game. BTW, I read your site from time to time, it's quite good. Keep it up. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:16 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Connected Nation Rules Scottie (and all other non-WISPA members on this list) I would like to repost something that I put on the WISPA Members list and on my blog at Wirelesscowboys.com - the WISP Manifesto. I am advocating that we should change our strategies to put together our own numbers, fight government programs that harm our businesses with taxpayer money and show the world that we are heroes to our communities. I would really enjoy commentary from anyone on the list. ML (This email started out as a response to Brian Webster's email and went WAY off on a tangent, so I'm changing the subject - sorry!) Brian, I'm going to disagree with you on a couple of points here. I think that you are mostly right, but you are accepting the framing of the issues as the telcos and politicians want them to be framed. That there is no way that we can win a toe-to-toe slugging match for spectrum, but this is not about a full on, frontal attack.This is guerilla warfare, and the game is played by a completely different set of rules. Think of it from the wisp operator's point of view.. 1) We've been given essentially no spectrum (the junk bands that we use were around long before WISPs were), 2)We get no government subsidies, despite the existence of stimulus and rural development programs for broadband deployment, which actually.. 3)Pours billions of taxpayer dollars into our competition, the same competition that has either delivered low grade broadband or none at all. 4)The USF program allows telcos to impose additional taxes on their services to go into a giant government enabled slush fund that goes right back into their systems. 5)RUS only lends to ILECs and will not work with multiple entities in an area 6)We are asked to turn over highly detailed information about our subscriber bases, tower sites and anchor tenants as part of the broadband mapping programs - information that is a FOIA request away from being public knowledge! In many (most) ways, we have little
