RE: [WISPA] Navini Networks, was no subject

2006-05-04 Thread Brian Webster
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

2006-05-04 Thread Jason Hensley

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)

2006-05-04 Thread Travis Johnson
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)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Liotta
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)

2006-05-04 Thread Tom DeReggi

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)

2006-05-04 Thread Jory Privett
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)

2006-05-04 Thread Tom DeReggi

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)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Liotta

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

2006-05-04 Thread n7mfy


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)

2006-05-04 Thread Peter R.

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

2006-05-04 Thread Brian Webster
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

2006-05-04 Thread Peter R.
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

2006-05-04 Thread Peter R.

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)

2006-05-04 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
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

2006-05-04 Thread chris cooper








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] Net Neutrality

2006-05-04 Thread Peter R.
Last year at ISPCON, Earl Comstock (CEO of COMPTEL and one of the 
authors of th TA96) explained that the mess we are in today is due to so 
many varied interests yelling at DC. All of them say regulate him, but 
not me. That doesn't work well in trying to language a bill.


(I still say it should be regulated like Obscenity.)

As Isen explains, sometimes you have to accept an ugly law. He cites the 
bussing law for segragation. No one liked it, but you had to start 
somewhere. Heck, the TA96 was an ugly law that was litigated to death.


You are correct that BPL, WISPs, and Munis are in good space to take 
advantage when the silos are built. But I just don't see the telcos 
allowing that scenario - allowing any competitors to exist to siphon off 
customers. After all, they do control the backbones - both MCI and ATT 
- and the FCC.


- Peter



Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

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]


--
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)

2006-05-04 Thread David Ellis
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/