RE: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject
Took the words right out of my mouth, great receiver specs do nothing in high noise environments. The idea of indoor CPE devices is also a myth for real world WISP deployments. How many times have you had to move around in a building with a cell phone to get better coverage. Indoor CPE is the same but most people won't understand that and won't want to move their computer. Higher power is not the answer because you still need the balanced path in both directions, the FCC will not let you put high power radios at the CPE end when it is sitting right next to the users body. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:55 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject Systems work differently when operating under licensed vs. unlicensed bands That said, no amount of fancing beamforming or signal processing or even complex QAM modulation will bust through that -70ish noise floor -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject Hi Ron I don't know much except what has come across these list since the stuff came out. I seem to recall a couple of wisps saying they've installed them and being successful. I don't recall that they were very fast at all. Some of the municipalities have deployed them, I think maybe Portland Oregon and Seattle Washington have them. And I think it was relatively expensive, Think I heard like 30-60k or more per pop. Big wind loaded multiple panel antennas of size and expensive omni's George Ron Wallace wrote: George, What do you know about them? -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:29 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] (no subject) Ron Wallace wrote: To All, Any one know anthing about Navini Networks and all their claims? sounds too good to be true. Ron Wallace I'd like to know as well how it performs and their success rate. It's been out awhile now. I do know that Navini and Vivato were supposed to be revolutionary products using smart antennas and direction beam forming techniques to overcome nlos and reach in deeper to the customer. They get to use more power than a normal PtMP unlicensed system. Vivato didn't make it: http://www.vivato.com/ VIVATO ANNOUNCES WIND DOWN PLANS. George -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 4.9GHz Omni
Anyone know where to get one, or do they exist? Thanks! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
WE aren't going to be able to do anything. Do you have millions to lobby this (one way or the other)? We will sit back and watch what happens, just like we ALWAYS have to do. The smaller WISPs have never influenced anything political. It's the big players that make the changes. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Content is supposed to get a free ride since we all sell data pipes. If a customer buys 1 meg of data service from me then they are free to use that 1 meg for whatever they want. If that isn't enough bandwidth for what they want then they better buy more. Over time will the customer be able to buy more bandwidth for less money? Sure, that trend has been going on for a long time now. Does that mean content providers are getting a free ride? No, they still have to pay transit costs on their side. Although, we are certainly peering with as many content providers as we can to reduce our transit costs and increase our customers' quality. Its pretty hot shit when you are 4ms away from Google and you don't have to pay for it. -Matt George Rogato wrote: It is a stretch peter. But you have to look at both ends of the argument, if you agree content providers will prevail in the future and you accept that the pipe has to get bigger, you can only come to the conclusion that the provider will have increased costs. Can the wisp actually raise thier prices while the telco and cable ops lower theirs? Not likely. The burden has to be shared by the content providers. I'm not saying make google pay per click, but movies and heavy consumption content can't get a free ride. So what should we do? George Peter R. wrote: That is one huge IF! Cuz how would they make money? If it did happen, you could always change your pricing model. Isn't there a clause in your AUP about total usage in a month? How about 30 days notice to affect a price change? - Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. George Rogato wrote: I don't know , Travis, web pages voip ftp streaming music occasional movies low bandwidth streaming video, no problem. But what if, what if tomorrow Travis wakes up and reads in his newspaper that the local cable company or satellite co is going to offer a substantial discount if the just unplug the cable wire and plug in that new set top box into their isp's little router and get ALL their tv that way. Wouldn't you ask, why can you guys use my network to feed your customers. Wouldn't you start wondering if those p4 routers and DS3's you got there be enough to handle that type of traffic? Would you have to upgrade your infrastructure to accomadate this? What if it was google, yahoo, msn, att or even verizon that was offering this as a way to reach customers without trying to build local infrastructure? I'm realizing I'm exaggerating this some, at least for the near future, but if this scenario was to take place, what would you be saying then? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Well, that the big misunderstanding right there. When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network? Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity. Also, content providers practice limiting individual connections' (end user's) speed to their content servers. Why should they have the right to limit our consumer's speed? They argue to protect their servers and Internet connections. How is that any different for an ISP to limit connections to their end users, to protect their Internet connections. Who really owns the Internet connections to consumers? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Last time I checked its the ISP that holds the long term loan covering the cost of that infrastructure, not the subscriber. If the end user cancels, its the ISP that is left covering the bill. I argue it is the ISP that owns that connection, and should be able to do what ever they want with their connection. There is a big difference controling traffic of your users, versus blocking traffic from other Broadband providers. Net Neutrality should address one topic and one topic only, prevent one Broadband provider from blocking traffic from another broadband provider in an attempt to harm the other Broadband provider or have a competitive advantage over that other Broadband provider, by leveraging its size and share of the market. There needs to be free non-discriminary exchange of data between Broadband providers, so that competitions can be abundant and consumers have choice, and can select based on the accomplishments and merit added by those providers. Content Providers nor Consumers have the right to control where and who they send data to, in my opinion. Its no different than a property owner determining who their tenants can and can not have access to, and who can and can not bring cable on to their property. VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there. in another view, maybe ethically, its the content providers that should get a free ride. And its the subscribers that should be getting billed. But we all know, the uproar that will happen when we try and charge the consumer. The truth is the consumer has such a gross misunderstanding of how the industry works and what it is they have bought when subscribing to a broadband service, its almost impossible to change the perception at this point. We owe that to the huge marketing efforts of Cable and ILECs :-( So its not about ethics anymore. Its about survival, and how to make it work. And that most likely means charging content providers, whether its right or not. But one thing I can tell you for sure, is its not the Broadband provider taht should pay for it. Nobody should be able to force me to mold the product that I sell into something other than what I want to sell. Its like going to a retial store and the governemnt forcing the owner to only be allowed to sell cashmere instead of cotton, but requiring them to sell it at the same cost as the cotton, regardless of the fact that the cashmere has a higher cost than the cotton did. Think about it, it would be for the common good of the consumer. Every American would have the opportunity to get more for less. Could you imagine the uproar if the governemnt attempted to do that Nation wide?
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Very powerful statement!!! Jory Privett WCCS - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Well, that the big misunderstanding right there. When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network? Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity. Also, content providers practice limiting individual connections' (end user's) speed to their content servers. Why should they have the right to limit our consumer's speed? They argue to protect their servers and Internet connections. How is that any different for an ISP to limit connections to their end users, to protect their Internet connections. Who really owns the Internet connections to consumers? Is it the consumer or the ISP? Last time I checked its the ISP that holds the long term loan covering the cost of that infrastructure, not the subscriber. If the end user cancels, its the ISP that is left covering the bill. I argue it is the ISP that owns that connection, and should be able to do what ever they want with their connection. There is a big difference controling traffic of your users, versus blocking traffic from other Broadband providers. Net Neutrality should address one topic and one topic only, prevent one Broadband provider from blocking traffic from another broadband provider in an attempt to harm the other Broadband provider or have a competitive advantage over that other Broadband provider, by leveraging its size and share of the market. There needs to be free non-discriminary exchange of data between Broadband providers, so that competitions can be abundant and consumers have choice, and can select based on the accomplishments and merit added by those providers. Content Providers nor Consumers have the right to control where and who they send data to, in my opinion. Its no different than a property owner determining who their tenants can and can not have access to, and who can and can not bring cable on to their property. VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there. in another view, maybe ethically, its the content providers that should get a free ride. And its the subscribers that should be getting billed. But we all know, the uproar that will happen when we try and charge the consumer. The truth is the consumer has such a gross misunderstanding of how the industry works and what it is they have bought when subscribing to a broadband service, its almost impossible to change the perception at this point. We owe that to the huge marketing efforts of Cable and ILECs :-( So its not about ethics anymore. Its about survival, and how to make it work. And that most likely means charging content providers, whether its right or not. But one thing I can tell you for sure, is its not the Broadband provider taht should pay for it. Nobody should be able to force me to mold the product that I sell into something other than what I want to sell. Its like going to a retial store and the governemnt forcing the owner to only be allowed to sell cashmere instead of cotton, but requiring them to sell it at the same cost as the cotton, regardless of the fact that the cashmere has a higher cost than the cotton did. Think about it, it would be
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Jack, I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not. However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not support our needs. I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone. Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is supporting. Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of the Internet is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate Internet being the connection all the way to the consumer. I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile. If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html 3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of Net Neutrality 4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to save the Internet. 5. If you disagree, take action to support your position. 6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support your position. So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone. Thank you for listening, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next public WISP Workshop is June 21 and 22 in Atlanta, Georgia 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Tom DeReggi wrote: When someone sells 1 mbps of speed, who said that meant they are selling the customer continuous 1 mbps for what ever use they want? And just because we sell them a 1 mbps last mile, who says that we are selling them that capacity accross our backbone network? You may oversubscribe your customers; not every ISP does. However, that is irrelevant. If the customer is buying an oversubscribed link then the customer must accept that certain types of content may not work very well. That is the customer's choice. Sounds like legislators or reading maketing advertisements instead of acceptable use policies and fine print of broadband contracts. What makes you come to that conclusion? When I sell 1 mbps to a resident, I in no way represent I am selling the subscriber 1 mbps of capacity. I'm selling him that speed. There is a nig difference. If they want that guaranteed capacity, they can buy it from me per bit, or pay for a CIR plan that guarantees that capacity. And if the customer buys a CIR plan then they can use their connection for whatever content they want right? So, where is your argument against my earlier email? VOIP providers most likely won't share my view, as they want a free ride. However, I beleive VOIP providers would not be harmfully effected by this, as all it would mean is that they must make partnerships with ISPs. There are 7000 ISPs out there ready to accept partnerships. Whats wrong with that. UNfortuneately, the idea that a VOIP content provider should ahve free reign to sell to anyone, such as through best Buy and Circuit cities, regardless of which ISP used, is a flawed model for competition. The reason is that the most popular and largest VOIP providers will be the one that gets the deal with Circuit Cities and Best Buys, and the industry will get lopsided, almost like a market driven self created monopoly. Forcing VOIP providers to make deals with ISPs, will create the opportunity for more different VOIP providers to be successfull and have a peice of the pie. It will also guaranteee that consumers can't as easilly be blindsided by misrepresenting marketing material. It will guarantee that VOIP has a better chance to survuve will good QOS because attention will be given by the broadband provider to make sure it is there. I disagree it is a flawed model. We have customers that buy VoIP from us and others that buy VoIP from companies like Vonage. Our VoIP is much higher quality, but for customers that buy Vonage they accept the service for what it is. We don't lower the priority of Vonage traffic; we don't have to. Our VoIP service will always better if for no other reason than it doesn't rely on internet transit. Core internet routers are designed to move as much traffic as fast as possible. Sometimes this means queing of traffic to obtain maximum throughput, while at the same time raising latency. That is a good thing for core routers, but a bad thing for real-time traffic like VoIP. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: Re: [WISPA] A little help, or 20 questions... which ever you preferr
Are you saying Canopy will interfere, and it is more expensive, OR Trav wants to free up more cash to buy little plastic twinkies. Lee Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 05:00:52 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] A little help, or 20 questions... which ever you preferr Ohgosh,notStar-OS!Sorry,thinkaboutthisforasecond,whydoyou thinkTravisissellingit!:-) PSsorryTravis Toanswer#3,canopywillwin,likeornot.Getaconsultanttotalk withforacouplehours,couldbethebestmoneyyoueverspent... JonLangeler MichwaveTech.[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: HeyGuys;I'mplanningtouseaValemountStarOStypesysteminmyWISPstart up,andhavejustafewquestions:MynetworkdesignusesaCisco1750router,Cisco2950switchtoplug upto4baseradio'sinto(Whoa...16antennas),Radiusserver, Sniffer,andawwwserverformyIntranetportal,Doesthisseem reasonable?1-DoIhavetolicenseeachCPE,(That$40thing)2-IfIusethe4radiosystem,doIhavetopopulateeachslot.3-WiththissystemI'mdelightedtosaythatIget11channels,and IwanttoknowhowitwilldoagainstCanopy. A-Interferencewise,willIhurtacanopysystemorwillit hurtme? B-Willacanopysystembemoreorlessexpensive C-Isitjustmeordothosecanopysystemslooklikelarge plastictwinkies.4-WhenValemontshipsmeaCPE,willitbereadytogoordoIhave someworktodo.5-Havetheybeenknowntoshipinlotssmallerthan10,orcould someonesellmeacoupleatfirsttomakeademounit.6-Howmanycustomerspersquaremilegiven$300installfee, $40/month,and256KBbandwidth?Lee -- WISPAWirelessList: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] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
Tom, Random mixed thoughts: When I buy a car or a sweater, I understand the tangible asset I have paid for. When I pay a toll on a highway, I understand that it is a tax for the thru-way upkeep. When I buy an internet pipe, I assume when they say 1.5M, I get 1.5M. Anything else better be explained or it is false advertising. And everyone has had the speed test junkies that scream about 1.3M. The Big Boys state that it is best effort. Do you? Do you advertise CIR or offer it? Do you have terms that explain it is not a dedicated connection? These are the CYA policies necessary. BellSouth has sued successfully ISPs for advertising they though was misleading, even as they themselves use misleading terms and phrases. But who has the bucks to sue the Tele-Baron??? I don't see any time soon when people are going to be downloading TV and movies. Some will, but a majority do not want to watch them from a PC. The Telcos are in for a rude awakening because the TV pie is static. As Isen explained this week, the price will have to go up for consumers, since neither cable nor telco can afford to pay off debt, maintain the pipes, and make their usual bloated profit off triple play. So it will be a price war in the short term, then price increases in the long term. Bloody for all, especially the consumer. On Net Neutrality - Personally, I think it should be hands off. Period. Anything less and the internet will become useless. And that Free Ride argument... who gets a free ride? Both sides all ready pay a provider for access. So where is the free? Plus, why do you think people want BB? If it was just to check email, they would stay on dial-up or buy a CrackBerry. They are buying an experience or a tool. If the tool doesn't work, they will buy another one. If the experience becomes painful, they will go elsewhere. This is the way of the market. Why do people flock to Starbucks, Lexus, BlackBerries? The experience, not the product. Sorry for rambling. One too many cups of cappucino today. Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] AOL offering wireless internet over Clearwires network
Well it's starting, and at $26 per month too. Let's hope this might actually help the WISP industry by being able to partner as a Group with AOL and offer the same wholesale deal in markets where Clearwire does not offer service or may not have any license. But that would still require everyone getting together as a whole (because AOL would not deal with each one individually) and also developing a national database/mapping coverage footprint. Just an idea, it appears they are going to do it without the WISP industry anyway now. Sure would be nice to leverage a huge marketing engine like AOL or MSN without having to bear the expense. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26292 Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Isen presentation on Net Neutrality
David S. Isenberg is a fellow of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/ He worked for ATT Labs until he wrote /The Rise of the Stupid Network /in May 1997. Network Neutrality Reality A podcast of my Berkman Lunch Talk yesterday, Network Neutrality Reality: What's Driving the Next Telecom Act is available: MP3 here http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/audio/uploads/45/61/david_isenberg_2006-05-02.mp3, powerpoints here http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/audio/uploads/47/Next_Telecom_Act.ppt. In my talk I try to give perspective on why the telcos want a law in the first place (because cable tv entry fits the business model they know) and how net neutrality hangs in the balance. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] AOL offering wireless internet over Clearwires network
Tough to herd those cats, but you may want to really move on this. Get all the AOL® you want using your existing connection with 10 hours of dial-up, just in case. *$14.95* per month. With a BB connection, as low as $25.95 for Unlimited access to AOL. (http://discover.aol.com/allplans.adp) That means about $11 for the access piece. However, AOL BB has lots of video, so maybe you don't want to move. Can you let them have unlimited access to AOL (pop-ups, banner ads, streaming ads and videos, and all) all for just $11? - Peter Brian Webster wrote: Well it's starting, and at $26 per month too. Let's hope this might actually help the WISP industry by being able to partner as a Group with AOL and offer the same wholesale deal in markets where Clearwire does not offer service or may not have any license. But that would still require everyone getting together as a whole (because AOL would not deal with each one individually) and also developing a national database/mapping coverage footprint. Just an idea, it appears they are going to do it without the WISP industry anyway now. Sure would be nice to leverage a huge marketing engine like AOL or MSN without having to bear the expense. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26292 Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)
After attending the Freedom to Connect conference, I was able to get a very up close and personal look at the people who are strongly supporting the Net Neutrality concepts. I believe that the intention is to keep the status quo of the Internet, and make sure that we will all be able to get the content that we want with a minimum of control/blockage/prioritization, etc. However, there are a couple of distinctions that need to be made. #1) Last mile networks that are built with private, non-government money - should not be FORCED to follow common-carrier guidelines. I.E. - I build and paid for my own network, and if I want to block port 1 and break Vonage from working, I should be able to do that. Sucks for Vonage, but it would suck even more if the management of private networks was controlled by legislators. Any new network construction that gets any kind of economic development or government assistance in the form of tax credits or breaks should have network neutrality mandated into it - or they don't get the assistance. #2) There should be a set of services that do fall under the common carrier guidelines and do little more than provide the interconnect between networks. There should be strong Network Neutrality guidelines for interconnection at the backbone level. Otherwise, my backbone provider can decide to block traffic and then it is out of my control. Of course they can charge more, and for these kind of connections we are ALREADY paying a substantial premium, but unfettered common carrier connections need to be available. The one thing that could really make a big difference in this whole equation is the existence and growth of other players beyond the telephone companies and major backbone carriers. If the telcos and cablecos continue with their apparent plan to make their networks into giant walled silos of their own content - there will be a substantial demand for open networks. WISPS are in a good position to take advantage of their manipulations. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom DeReggi wrote: Jack, I have not visited the site yet, and at your recommendation, I will explore their content, to see if it is something that I would support or not. However, if only 6 ISPs have signed, that could be a sign, that it may not support our needs. I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe its the responsibilty of the speaker to bare the cost and responsibilty of their speech. Its not the ISPs responsibilty to buy the microphone. Net Neutrality, is a tough subject, to even fully understand what a group is supporting. Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet I agree, but... The problem is the interpretation of what the definition of the Internet is. I have no problem with the above comment, if meaning is conections between providers. The problem is that most people Interperate Internet being the connection all the way to the consumer. I feel that legislation may prevent ISPs from blocking access from their consumers. The only alternative is prioritizing or slowing down traffic accross the network between providers. Its hard to know if the second should not be supported, if we don;t know if we'll loose control of our last mile. If wireless Providers can't control the flow of data on their network to consumers, it will destroy their networks. And If WISPS are allowed to block and Large carriers are not, consumers are likely to pick big carriers over WISPs. Its a scary situation, when you know one TV broadcast can monopolize the throughput of a WISPs connection to its clients in many cases. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality) Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers (ATT, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, assuming that you are allowed to use it. Packets from sites can be (as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing at all unless the backbone providers approve. This, to me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to Save the Internet. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, I urge each one of you to: 1. Read the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 2. Do your own additional research on Net Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet - based on the First Amendment to the American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.
[WISPA] rubber roof mounts
Ive got some installs to do on a couple rubber roofs. Can I use a regular ( the kind I can get at lowes) rubber mat under the non penetrating mount or is there another type of mat made just for this application? Ive seen em under cellular sleds and as walk pads and they look like an ordinary rubber mat. I dont want to void someones roof warranty though. Thanks, Chris Intelliwave -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] (no subject)
Hello Ron, I talked with the sales people in Vegas last year and at that time I think there biggest deployment was in Sidney. They sound great but the price was too high. If I remember right they were talking around 250k and up. Dave On 5/3/06 11:30 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Wallace wrote: To All, Any one know anthing about Navini Networks and all their claims? sounds too good to be true. Ron Wallace I think the techniques are great ideas, wish I could get some smart antennas to work with an atheros card. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
