911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service  
for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with  
council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911  
compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may  
provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific  
service for compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone  
systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then,  
even with a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit  
limited) capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also  
to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone  
system to a small business for  around $2500, phones included.   
There was a considerable amount of profit margin in that amount,  
and it beat the nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer  
picked up my 1meg Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying  
$50/month for 3000 minutes of long distance and a toll free line.   
I also get at least $35 every time they need a change made to their  
phone service (new phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the  
911 and local dial tone is all on the POTS lines, you clevely  
sidestep that risk.  This beats the heck out of trying to do the  
outsourced PBX service, because they have hardware onsite and  
flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, including  
land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a  
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some  
will try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily)  
about VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 
5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)


Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners  
mess, I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know  
what the Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is  
difficult. When you take over the dial-tone of a business, you  
better make sure that you have 5 Nines of reliability with  
redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, they are  
losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making  
any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in  
income. MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the  
network, charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate  
the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have  
25k customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you  
have to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but  
these same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At  
a 15% take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and  
using Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be  
profitable, before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service  
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but  
not the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard  
that song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the  
few out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc.  
good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be  
made over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend  
for DSL and cable companies to mess up other people's voip  
continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell phones  
will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge to get  
there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business users  
are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test of  
VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is good  
enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user can't  
tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost and the  
increase in functionality afforded by 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: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?

Yes

I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like  
Trango?

Can do that too.

Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on  
VLANs does it?

Not per VLAN, but per SM.


How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?

Trango has no support for it.

PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn  
expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra  
$180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you  
don't want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment.  
Second, if you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer  
that service is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't  
going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU  
business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on  
radios doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that  
Canopy and Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick  
for our business model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems  
could completely change our point-of-view though.


-Matt

On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and  
Syncing feature of Canopy.
I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many  
cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than  
double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new  
customer is jsut a CPE.


PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay  
$200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.


One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to  
oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their  
capacity.

PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be  
preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for  
the end game.
But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers  
a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if  
leasing.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality  
alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many  
as 5  Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all  
operating on  the same channel.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated  
connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating  
polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not   
something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links  
on  a single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do   
they are either small businesses with very little voice and  
data  needs or they are just data customers. All of our  
customers with  any significant amount of voice are running on  
dedicated radios.  I would say our average customer buys 12  
lines of voice and  delivering that over a Canopy backhaul  
works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like  
to  hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually   
doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent  
calls  per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have   
talked to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week  
and  we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you  
bump  up against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does   
not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for  
the softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday,  
June  16, 2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing   
layer 2





transort


for carriers.





We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport   
from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from  
fiber  providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally  
next  step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done  
it  sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached  
weren't  willing to offer them layer 2 transport.




How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how  
do  you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other  
popular  5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of  
many larger

Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.







We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP   
customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios.   
Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we  
can  properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot  
with  

Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have had 
conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without even 
knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have such a 
phone call in the future is increasing steadily.


VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
DSL from a revenue/expense standpoint. They are ready to do it now.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:

You may have the very best VoIP system with the least latency, highest 
call quality, etc but it still is not the same as a POTS line.


The real test is when you call someone from a VoIP line to a cell 
phone... that's when you get echo, delay and noise to the point that 
you end up talking over each other, etc. I have been on the cell phone 
end of MANY calls like this, from MANY different companies around the 
US. Every single one of them was using VoIP (from many different 
providers). Having a shared pipe (VoIP) will just never be the same 
as a dedicated pipe (POTS). :)


Granted, VoIP may be good enough for 99% of the people, but personally 
I guess I fall into the 1%. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell phones  
will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge to get  
there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business users  
are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test 
of  VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is 
good  enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user 
can't  tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost 
and the  increase in functionality afforded by 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: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

I will have to find the article I read about a year ago regarding VoIP 
and POTS and cellular. It shows that even with the number of people that 
are switching, it is still VERY small when compared with the number that 
still have POTS and will continue to keep their land lines.


In our area, the big switch is not to VoIP but rather to cell phones. 
There are many products on the market now that allow you to plug a cell 
phone into your normal phone wiring in the home and then port your 
number to the cell phone. Thus, you save money, have a phone you can 
take with you no matter where you go, have 911 services, etc.


Does anyone know the percentages of different phone services in Taiwan, 
Japan, or otherwise? I thought I read somewhere that one of those 
countries was over 75% cell phone.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have 
had conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without 
even knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have 
such a phone call in the future is increasing steadily.


VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
DSL from a revenue/expense standpoint. They are ready to do it now.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:

You may have the very best VoIP system with the least latency, 
highest call quality, etc but it still is not the same as a POTS 
line.


The real test is when you call someone from a VoIP line to a cell 
phone... that's when you get echo, delay and noise to the point that 
you end up talking over each other, etc. I have been on the cell 
phone end of MANY calls like this, from MANY different companies 
around the US. Every single one of them was using VoIP (from many 
different providers). Having a shared pipe (VoIP) will just never 
be the same as a dedicated pipe (POTS). :)


Granted, VoIP may be good enough for 99% of the people, but 
personally I guess I fall into the 1%. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell 
phones  will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge 
to get  there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business 
users  are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test 
of  VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is 
good  enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user 
can't  tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost 
and the  increase in functionality afforded by 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: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen



I'm interested in a unit, but haven't got a 
response. Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] the 
right address?

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Patrick 
  Shoemaker 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spectrum 
  Analyzer
  There is a group purchase for these going on over at the 
  Broadband Reports WISP forum. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716~mode=flatI 
  will be purchasing one to try it out. I figure for about $1000 it 
  ought to be worth it, especially for WISP use. I expect some clumsy 
  features and inconveniences, but I'm willing to live with that for the 
  price. With the group purchase we will save a couple hundred 
  bucks. If you're interested, get in touch with John (binary1000) 
  quickly as he will be placing orders soon.PatrickBrian 
  Rohrbacher wrote: I am looking at the Spectran HF-4080. looks like 
  a nice little handheld Spectrum Analyzer for the 
  price. http://test1.contenttest.net/Spektrumanalysator_en.shtml# 
  (look  bottom left) With the extra ram for plotting, 
  it is about $1000 US. Is it as good piece of hardware for the 
  price? Brian-- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

I believe that means that the VOIP line to the customer must be able to dial 
911.
However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they 
intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the providers 
switch, it complies.
So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional offices 
to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give an 
appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - 
Skype,Yahoo, MS)



Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service  for 
911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with  council. 
If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911  compliant as per 
the order. Any other services you may or others may  provide to the 
customer are not considered when testing your specific  service for 
compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone  systems and 
make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then,  even with a dead 
internet connection, they will still have (albeit  limited) capabilitity 
to get out and receive phone calls, and also  to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone  system to 
a small business for  around $2500, phones included.   There was a 
considerable amount of profit margin in that amount,  and it beat the 
nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer  picked up my 1meg 
Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying  $50/month for 3000 
minutes of long distance and a toll free line.   I also get at least $35 
every time they need a change made to their  phone service (new phones, 
reconfiguration, etc).Because the  911 and local dial tone is all on 
the POTS lines, you clevely  sidestep that risk.  This beats the heck out 
of trying to do the  outsourced PBX service, because they have hardware 
onsite and  flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, 
including  land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some  will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily)  about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 
5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)


Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners  mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know  what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is  difficult. When you 
take over the dial-tone of a business, you  better make sure that you 
have 5 Nines of reliability with  redundancy built-in, because if the 
phones are working, they are  losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making  any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in  income. MSOs 
are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the  network, charge a 
higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate  the 911 issue. The top 
7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have  25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you  have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but  these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At  a 15% take 
rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and  using Asterisk and 
a CLEC PRI in a small region could be  profitable, before scale, growth, 
and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but  not 
the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard  that 
song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the  few out 
that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc.  good for 
you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be  made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend  for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip  continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, 
they intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the 
providers switch, it complies.


That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?

So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional 
offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would 
give an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are 
so cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by 
moving to voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per 
month on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

customer isn't  going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either.


I thought that was the point I was trying to get across. Thus my 
recommendation for a high quality switch.


SMC AL2 series managed switches. Have a Cisco type firmware. IVL supported, 
unlike the older switch models.
$180 each.  Never had one fail in the history of our company. We use them 
all over the place.


Allthough the Cisco like telnet interface is confusing.

(with the exception of when water dripped through the inside of a gel filled 
CAT5 cable for 350 feet, and dripped into an open jack, shorting it out, 
because I had it mounted not considering the possibilty of water dripping.)


Everyone wants to save money if it doesn't compromise the offering. People 
don't buy Orthogon because its expensive they  buy it because its the 
product that is required to solve the problem (Non-LOS).


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?

Yes

I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like 
Trango?

Can do that too.

Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on  VLANs 
does it?

Not per VLAN, but per SM.


How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?

Trango has no support for it.

PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn  expensive, 
and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra  $180 to put a 
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you  don't 
want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment.  Second, if 
you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer  that service 
is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't  going to want a 
cheap piece of network equipment either.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

2006-06-20 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716

Visit the forum.

Brian


David Sovereen wrote:

I'm interested in a unit, but haven't got a response.  Is 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] the right address?
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Patrick Shoemaker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:28 AM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

There is a group purchase for these going on over at the Broadband
Reports WISP forum.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716~mode=flat
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716%7Emode=flat

I will be purchasing one to try it out.  I figure for about $1000 it
ought to be worth it, especially for WISP use.  I expect some clumsy
features and inconveniences, but I'm willing to live with that for
the
price.  With the group purchase we will save a couple hundred
bucks.  If
you're interested, get in touch with John (binary1000) quickly as he
will be placing orders soon.

Patrick

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

 I am looking at the Spectran HF-4080. looks like a nice little
handheld

 Spectrum Analyzer for the price.

 http://test1.contenttest.net/Spektrumanalysator_en.shtml#(look
 bottom left)

 With the extra ram for plotting, it is about $1000 US.

 Is it as good piece of hardware for the price?


 Brian





-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Horsecrap.  All I am selling is the phone system. 


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Matt Liotta wrote:
Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service 
for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with 
council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911 
compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may 
provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific 
service for compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems 
and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then, even with 
a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) 
capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system 
to a small business for  around $2500, phones included.  There was a 
considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the 
nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer picked up my 1meg 
Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 
minutes of long distance and a toll free line.  I also get at least 
$35 every time they need a change made to their phone service (new 
phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone 
is all on the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk.  This beats 
the heck out of trying to do the outsourced PBX service, because 
they have hardware onsite and flexibility to go with multiple 
providers for dial tone, including land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about 
VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) 



Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, 
I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When 
you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that 
you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if 
the phones are working, they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making 
any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. 
MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, 
charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 
issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have 
to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% 
take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using 
Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, 
before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but 
not the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard 
that song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few 
out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good 
for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

2006-06-20 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

David Sovereen wrote:

I'm interested in a unit, but haven't got a response.  Is 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] the right address?
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Patrick Shoemaker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:28 AM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

There is a group purchase for these going on over at the Broadband
Reports WISP forum.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716~mode=flat
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716%7Emode=flat

I will be purchasing one to try it out.  I figure for about $1000 it
ought to be worth it, especially for WISP use.  I expect some clumsy
features and inconveniences, but I'm willing to live with that for
the
price.  With the group purchase we will save a couple hundred
bucks.  If
you're interested, get in touch with John (binary1000) quickly as he
will be placing orders soon.

Patrick

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

 I am looking at the Spectran HF-4080. looks like a nice little
handheld

 Spectrum Analyzer for the price.

 http://test1.contenttest.net/Spektrumanalysator_en.shtml#(look
 bottom left)

 With the extra ram for plotting, it is about $1000 US.

 Is it as good piece of hardware for the price?


 Brian





-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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] Hearing on USF

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

From: On Behalf Of Eric Lee
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Open-net-working-group] Hearing on USF

There will be a hearing tomorrow on the high-cost-fund in the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee. I’m told but can’t confirm that there 
will be a follow-up hearing featuring opponents of the USF as currently 
constituted. However, I would still encourage anyone who’s opposed to 
the USF to submit views. I would suggest to anyone who falls into that 
category, however, to express his or her views in a constructive manner, 
that is to say, such as “we all support mechanisms to encourage network 
subscribers. However, …..”


Send written comments to the chairman of the Committee, Rep. Joe Barton.


Eric H. M. Lee

Lee and Associates

1730 M St., NW

Suite 911

Washington, DC 20036

--


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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

We've been through this debate a number of times comparing PTP models to 
PtMP models, and which is better.
I am in no way saying PtP models are not good, just different things to 
consider, neither better.

The acceptabilty of PtMP model has nothing to do with ARPU of subscriber.
I can support $800 ARPU customers off of PtMP model with no problem at all.
Viabilty of PTMP model has to do with how fast rate of growth will happen.

It has taken us a long time to fill up the capacity of our PtMP network.
And because our coverage range is so large, (30 cell sites), our custoemrs 
come in from all over the place, not necessarilly saturating the capacity of 
a single cell site or sector. We find that sales always takes longer than 
people think, so PtMP often has plenty of capacity. Why pay roof rights on 
antennas, that are under used?


A business model can be made to jsutify PtP links, no doubt.  But jsut 
because you can get top ARPU from customers and justify the expendatures, is 
no reason to pay more cost than you need to. Maximum profit is made from 
increasing revenue and REDUCING COSTS, regardless of wether you need to. 
PtMP REDUCES cost in early stages.


Remember a PTMP system can always be upgraded by adding PTP links later to 
expand capacity, and migrate to a PTP model when needed.


The decission to go PTP should be made because of the long term labor 
savings, because you did everything from the beginning optimally to reduce 
future rebuilding.  Or for interference link quality reasons.


I personally do not care about the labor. I got good engineers at $15 an 
hour to do the upgrades.  I figure by the time I need the faster dedicated 
PTP links the technology will be better cheaper and different.  Others that 
use contractors at hefty labor costs, would care more about long term labor 
saving, and preventing replication of work.  The biggest differenciator is 
wether you ahve high roof right fees to pay.  If you are not paying much for 
roof rights, there is little harm in spending the money for additional 
antennas.


I think once a provider as learned a proven growth rate (speed) of what they 
can accomplish, and have a record of their average costs (roof rights) they 
can make the decission of wether a PtMP or PTP model is best.


It also depends on the assets of the provider. Eventually for ALL companies 
credit limits could potentially get exceeded iftheir growth rate was fast 
enough. Unless the provider is a billionaire.  Very few people lease on 
future revenue, business plans, and credit alone (with fair terms). Almost 
all require assets to secure the lease amount other than the radio value. 
100 radios at $10,000 each (say Redline PTP) is a million dollars. PTP can 
get out of hand quick if someone does serious scale quickly.


As a matter of fact, stating PTP helps a provider reach a cash flow positive 
state and healthy books, to speed up a companies abilty to get financing for 
PTP expansion.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU 
business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on  radios 
doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that  Canopy and 
Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick  for our business 
model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems  could completely change 
our point-of-view though.


-Matt

On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and  Syncing 
feature of Canopy.

I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many  cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than 
double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new 
customer is jsut a CPE.


PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay  $200 per 
month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.


One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to  oversubscribe 
and resell unused capacity. Few people use their  capacity.

PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be  preferred 
for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for  the end game.
But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers  a 
clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if  leasing.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM

RE: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread tonylist
Marlon

We are looking at this now for Demarc and I can tell you the cost is less
vs. pots if setup correctly . We have 5 standard pots lines coming in now at
a basic cost of $220 after you add in all the taxes and fees. The we pay
about $40 a month for long anywhere, any time, unlimited distance with a
total of $260 a month.

This same setup on VOIP would be $70-$100 a month with 4 incoming lines and
one main DID including LD. We are looking at doing something in the middle
where we would go to 2 POTS and the rest VOIP so have redundancy in the
system.

Now I would say that this only works on a multi-line system for small
business, customers that only have 1-2 lines would not see much is any
savings. But as you add more lines you start seeing a major difference.

Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

The clear trend where we're at is cell phone and/or voip.

Mostly, it's cell phone and no land line.  What for?  I've got my phone, she
has hers, the kids each have one etc.  Who needs a land line, portable phone
or otherwise

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to
voip.

And lets not forget chat eh?  Many of the new business people/leaders out
there are used to using chat instead of talking on the phone.  I don't know
about you guys, but I remember spending hours some days on the phone with my
friends as a teenager.  Now my son chats.  I also use chat a lot during the
day.  He'll use it far more.

How many of you are trying to teach your corporate customers to use chat
instead of picking up the phone all of the time?  I think that all I really
need is my own chat server that I can assure them of privacy and no stupid
bells and whistles and I could make more money offering a private chat
system than voip!  And I could greatly increase my customer's efficiency. 
No need for small talk when you are on chat all day like there is with each
phone call.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


A lot can change in a year especially with a mass-market disruptive 
technology like VoIP. In just the last 3 months of 2005 900,000 new VoIP 
subs were added. Earlier this year the total household VoIP market was 
thought to be 4.5 million subs, but is expected to be 7.9 million by years 
end. Most of this increase is to due to the cable companies, which now 
exceed 50% market share. Interestingly, cable companies have access to 9% 
of all households and 7% percent of RBOC households. Couple this with RBOCs

currently losing ~5% of their POTS lines each year and the picture gets 
pretty clear.

 Worldwide things are quite a bit different where 40% of all minutes 
 passing through class 5 switches are at some point handled as VoIP.

 -Matt

 Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 I will have to find the article I read about a year ago regarding VoIP 
 and POTS and cellular. It shows that even with the number of people that 
 are switching, it is still VERY small when compared with the number that 
 still have POTS and will continue to keep their land lines.

 In our area, the big switch is not to VoIP but rather to cell phones. 
 There are many products on the market now that allow you to plug a cell 
 phone into your normal phone wiring in the home and then port your number

 to the cell phone. Thus, you save money, have a phone you can take with 
 you no matter where you go, have 911 services, etc.

 Does anyone know the percentages of different phone services in Taiwan, 
 Japan, or otherwise? I thought I read somewhere that one of those 
 countries was over 75% cell phone.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Liotta wrote:

 There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
 service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have had

 conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without even 
 knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have such a

 phone call in the future is increasing steadily.

 VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
 of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
 than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
 have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
 DSL 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
I would almost buy this statement if it weren't for the fact that cell 
phone call quality is horrible.
Add bluetooth headsets to the equation and windshear and I can't hear a 
blessed word some people are saying.

And this has not stopped people from using cell phones.

Consumers switch to VoIP for 3 reasons: cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.

Regards,

Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

The problem that people make is they try to measure (put a rating on) 
the call quality of a call, which is wrong.
The correct way to measure VOIP quality is to measure the percentage 
of calls that can accomplish a defined level of quality.
The quality varies based on where it is made to. And provider have no 
way to test to all possible destinations.


The advantage of telcos is that they can guarantee quality to more 
locations predictably.
When I get a good VOIP link, it often is much better quality than my 
POTS line (analog versus digital), its just not all VOIP calls meet 
that quality.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality 
factions.WCA claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in 
advanced communications over broadband wireless by protecting the 
business from net-neutrality regulation


With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks, 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more 
competitive broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are 
investing heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are 
part of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest 
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
/search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement.


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House 
floor vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after 
defeating repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality 
laws and to give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate 
*Committee on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive 
communications-reform bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality 
provisos as well as to the Senate Judiciary Committee that is 
considering separate net neutrality bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly 
context (/see related stories in today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday 
(reschuled from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on 
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon 
has slated a hearing on the impact of the proposed ATT/BellSouth merger 
(in light of consolidating telcos becoming a factor in the 
net-neutrality fight).


--


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] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

I agree.

I didn't say consumers demanded better quality.
I jsut said that when people are discussing quality of VOIP, they use the 
wrong criteria.


I can also argue that its not ALL about price. And the reason is people 
don;t seem to have any problem paying their cell phone bill that on average 
historically is much higher than their POTS phone bill.   Its not uncommon 
for people to get unexpected $300 cell phone bills, and they pay it without 
a fuss.

So I'd argue mobility has a higher value than price or quality to most.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


I would almost buy this statement if it weren't for the fact that cell 
phone call quality is horrible.
Add bluetooth headsets to the equation and windshear and I can't hear a 
blessed word some people are saying.

And this has not stopped people from using cell phones.

Consumers switch to VoIP for 3 reasons: cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.

Regards,

Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

The problem that people make is they try to measure (put a rating on) the 
call quality of a call, which is wrong.
The correct way to measure VOIP quality is to measure the percentage of 
calls that can accomplish a defined level of quality.
The quality varies based on where it is made to. And provider have no way 
to test to all possible destinations.


The advantage of telcos is that they can guarantee quality to more 
locations predictably.
When I get a good VOIP link, it often is much better quality than my POTS 
line (analog versus digital), its just not all VOIP calls meet that 
quality.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread Stephen Patrick
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K





Hi there,


Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point.
We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity.

The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish.

Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc).

Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either.

But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS.

Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from vendor products I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth.

Regards


Stephen


CableFree Solutions
www.cablefreesolutions.com


-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under
$ 6K



Hi Tom,


Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that
Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing,
hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution


While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the
convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its
flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature


If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself
genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then,
documentation gets a bit sparse there...)


-Charles


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $
6K



Paul,


Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests 
in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were 
not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from


Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware 
(not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with 
the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds 
were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate 
speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the 
situation) modulation for testing).


I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to 
Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP.
We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy 
environments (for us almost everywhere :-)
Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik.


Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost 
perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same 
thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and 
forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is


doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that 
Trango is still doing it also).


It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to 
Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant 
features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today,


if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and 
price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 
6K



 Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a 
 Mikrotik/N-Streme solution.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
 On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: 

[WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's 
a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have 
pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide 
cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the 
ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When 
looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends 
not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't 
have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many 
VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something 
different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies 
offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea 
seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find 
useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service 
is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability 
to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular 
solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide 
something more than just a telephone replacement service when it comes 
to VoIP.


--


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: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?


listening to others' conversations, but I am not knowledgeable on the 
subject yet, and I take your word for it.


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


Understand I am not a phone guy, and just learning Asterix.
This is what I don't understand.
If I provision my customers to my switch I know my customer's source phone 
numbers.
Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move this 
call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx 
appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. I match this up a 
tthe time I initially provision the customer.  Then I have multiple POTs 
lines A,B,C with each of the unique area code/phone yyy-yyy of the unique 
regions that we serve.  When customer 2 in region B makes a call, my script 
says if call comes from customer B and destination =911 switch to source 
POTS line B. Again programmed into our switch at time of provisioning based 
on the customer's address or typcial phone number for their area.  Whay 
can't that happen? Why wouldn't that comply?
Is it that there is not enough 911 lines to match the number of potential 
callers? Or is it that that type of scripting is not possible based on 
designs of Asterix and PBXes.  OR is it that you are saying that its not 
possible to get a variety of custom unique numbers yyy-yyy to a single 
location? Would it jsut mean that you need to have a switch in each region 
yyy-yyy?  Isn't that how my Cell site is already designed? I have a cell 
site every 5 miles radius apart. I see no problem in putting a Asterix 
switch and a few 911 capable pots line at each cell site location, and 
terminate calls at the first hop. I may redirect/transport calls using VOIP 
to a remote gateway after I check that the destination is NOT a 911 call. 
But as long as teh checking happens at the first hop (within 5 miles) why 
would it not work. This could be a problem for people that buy into Broadcom 
and have to buy a $30,000-$100,000 switch software, or name brand MetaSwitch 
($150,000 hardware), but not a problem for the Asterix VOIP provider with a 
hard cost of under $1000 per gateway plus POTs line costs.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)




Tom DeReggi wrote:

However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they 
intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the 
providers switch, it complies.


That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?

So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional 
offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give 
an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread Jeff Broadwick
 I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth.
 
Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet.

Figuring it correctly:

just my 1.0871p worth

:-) 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, 
move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone 
xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides.


Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone 
number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the 
PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not 
match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS 
line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do 
that you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with 
your VoIP service.


The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection 
to every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability 
to make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to 
be a CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that 
includes E911.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Re: 911 compliance

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
The 911 call is going to use SS7 information like caller ID and address 
from the LIDB database to send help.

Your script can't really do that.
If it could, you would need to test hck out of it and find a way to get 
insurance to cover when it didn't work and you were sued for criminal 
negligience. See, because the FCC says you have to do Enhanced 911 in 
offering VoIP, if you don't and something happens, it is a criminal 
offense. Jail time and big dollar civil action. (As explained to me by 2 
respected telecom attorneys).


- Peter

Tom DeReggi wrote:


That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?



listening to others' conversations, but I am not knowledgeable on the 
subject yet, and I take your word for it.


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which 
will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.



Understand I am not a phone guy, and just learning Asterix.
This is what I don't understand.
If I provision my customers to my switch I know my customer's source 
phone numbers.
Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, 
move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone 
xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. I 
match this up a tthe time I initially provision the customer.  Then I 
have multiple POTs lines A,B,C with each of the unique area code/phone 
yyy-yyy of the unique regions that we serve.  When customer 2 in 
region B makes a call, my script says if call comes from customer B 
and destination =911 switch to source POTS line B. Again programmed 
into our switch at time of provisioning based on the customer's 
address or typcial phone number for their area.  Whay can't that 
happen? Why wouldn't that comply?
Is it that there is not enough 911 lines to match the number of 
potential callers? Or is it that that type of scripting is not 
possible based on designs of Asterix and PBXes.  OR is it that you are 
saying that its not possible to get a variety of custom unique numbers 
yyy-yyy to a single location? Would it jsut mean that you need to have 
a switch in each region yyy-yyy?  Isn't that how my Cell site is 
already designed? I have a cell site every 5 miles radius apart. I see 
no problem in putting a Asterix switch and a few 911 capable pots line 
at each cell site location, and terminate calls at the first hop. I 
may redirect/transport calls using VOIP to a remote gateway after I 
check that the destination is NOT a 911 call. But as long as teh 
checking happens at the first hop (within 5 miles) why would it not 
work. This could be a problem for people that buy into Broadcom and 
have to buy a $30,000-$100,000 switch software, or name brand 
MetaSwitch ($150,000 hardware), but not a problem for the Asterix VOIP 
provider with a hard cost of under $1000 per gateway plus POTs line 
costs.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen



I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
equal access to all content on the Internet.

How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
traffic from Vonage or anyone else.

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, 
RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
again.

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, 
but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage my 
network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for 
  the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big 
  Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell 
  South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't 
  believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests unlicensed 
  WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to 
  "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire point. 
  Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos 
  will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows 
  through it. It will be one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop 
  operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get their subscribers access 
  to "premium" content. It will drive the customers of small operators 
  to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because those networks will be the 
  only "fast" networks or the only ones that have "access" to everything on 
  the internet.- Larry Yunker- Original Message - 
  From: "Peter R." [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "WISPA General 
  List" wireless@wispa.orgSent: Tuesday, 
  June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html 
  http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
   down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the 
  pressure  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress  
  /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
   break, /June 15). Representing about 250 companies in 
  broadband wireless carriage and  manufacturing, WCA has teamed with 
  the recently formed  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott 
  Cleland, president of  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an 
  "e-forum" for debate but  clearly positions itself among the vocal 
  anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA  claims its motive is to promote 
  growth and innovation in advanced  communications over broadband 
  wireless by protecting the business from  net-neutrality 
  regulation "With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it 
  is imperative that  wireless broadband providers remain free to manage 
  their own networks,"  said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared 
  statement. "Net-neutrality  regulation would discourage innovation and 
  investment in more competitive  broadband choices to all Americans. 
  Our member companies are investing  heavily in WiMAX 
  /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of  next-generation 
  broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part  of the 
  competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem." 
  Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable  
  Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
   Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States 
  Telecommunications  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, 
  *Alltel*, *ATT*,  *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest 
  /search/?query=Qwest  Communications International*, *Sprint*, 
  *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon  /search/?query=Verizon 
  Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*. With the WCA's 
  membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless  broadband 
  companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would  discourage 
  investment, adding, "More innovation and competition are the  
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
   micromanagement." The development comes after key 
  *House* 

RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread Stephen Patrick
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K





Nice one Jeff... 
Absolutely right -
and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people) 


:-)


-Original Message-
From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under
$ 6K



I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth.

Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet.


Figuring it correctly:


just my 1.0871p worth


:-) 



-- 
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] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more features 
than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers you 
a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech 
area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature 
list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're 
just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone 
company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether 
you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local / 
long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The 
same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about 
ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN feature 
EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN 
eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a 
cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed 
out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper 
calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add 
new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for 
game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly 
as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done 
before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers 
focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good 
news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something 
different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a 
gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's 
more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of 
the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to 
callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's 
nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a 
telephone replacement service when it comes to VoIP.


--


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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 to 
$2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be 
paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so 
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to 
voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month 
on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
I beg to differ... Find-me/follow-me, Outlook Integration, Billing 
Platform Integration, video phone, do not disturb, call logs, 
distributed call centers, IVR, and the list goes on VoIP is actually 
more than a phone. But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, 
which it is about dial-tone. From experience, Caller ID, Call Forward 
and Voicemail are the most popular features, especially with so many SOHO.


- Peter

Rich Comroe wrote:

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service 
typically offers you a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so 
in my midwest Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 
features from the feature list for free.  Most people don't even want 
the 5 free features ... they're just nuisances.  There's a damn it, 
just take 'em attitude where the phone company now bundles several of 
the features into all local service whether you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain 
local / long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to 
accept this.  The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone 
used to be said about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  
Not one advanced ISDN feature EVER became popular with consumers.  
Within the telecom industry ISDN eventually became known by several 
alternate names, one of which was Inventions Subscribers Don't Need 
(my favorite).


Rich


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

VZ Local/LD single Resi POTS line in Tampa, FL is $78 total bill.
My CallVantage line is $41.

Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 
to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have 
to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread tonylist
Rich

In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the features
one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play
but it's a step in the right direction. 
Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as a
feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines when
setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have one
phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup on
standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features and
save $$ at the same time :) 

Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone 

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more features
than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers you
a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech
area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature
list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're
just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone
company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether
you want 'em or not.

For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local /
long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The
same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about
ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN feature
EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN
eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).

Rich

- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone


 VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
 http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


 For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a 
 cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed 
 out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper 
 calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add

 new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for 
 game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly

 as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done 
 before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers 
 focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good 
 news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something 
 different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a 
 gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's 
 more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of 
 the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to 
 callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's 
 nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a 
 telephone replacement service when it comes to VoIP.

 -- 


 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/ 

-- 
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] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Wow... my Qwest bill with Caller-ID, Caller Blocking, etc. is $38 per 
month total (including all taxes, surcharges, etc.).


Travis
Microserv

Peter R. wrote:


VZ Local/LD single Resi POTS line in Tampa, FL is $78 total bill.
My CallVantage line is $41.

Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US 
long distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To 
save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean 
they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay 
federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that 
(which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same 
monthly.  I'm not seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are 
ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long 
distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US).  Is 
$60/mo unmetered local  long distance not available?


Rich




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Blake Bowers

Thats because ISDN really stands for I Still Don't No...

Back in the 80's when Bellsouth introduced it in 
Nashville, the techs had to make repeated stops

at my house to finally get it going.  Probably 20 of them.

Bellsouth introduced it, without bothering to show their
employees how to make it work.  Still, it was lots
better than 2400 baud to access FIDONET



- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN).

Travis
Microserv





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
I think David is right on.  I remember the peering wars in 95' and they 
didn't last long because people would not put up with it then, and 
internet to the private businesses/individuals was fairly new then.  The 
priority wars will go the same way.  If Qwest doesn't give you a 
reasonable speed to google, then I bet comcast will and customers will 
buys the service that fits their needs.


The pro net neutrality people suggest that 'premium' bandwidth will come 
at a premium price, but there is nothing stopping the cableops and LECs 
from raising their prices today or lowering their SLAs... Nothing except 
the competition that is, and I don't see that going away any time soon.  
As long as there is a demand there will be competition to provide that 
service at a competitive price, atleast up until the time the government 
gets involved with taxes, regulations and subsidies.  I don't think I 
want the FCC regulating the SLA with my customers.


If you cannot control the traffic on your network to benefit the 
majority of your users you are going to see your quality users leaving 
for greener pastures.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

David Sovereen wrote:
I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less 
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how 
they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation opens the 
door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from 
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate 
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP 
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from 
Vonage or anyone else.
 
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other 
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see 
my point.
 
These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a 
quality of service my customers expect.
 
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Larry Yunker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General
List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the
interests of
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers
(many of
which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon
RBOCs).  With
statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be
looking out
for the interests unlicensed WISPs.

If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to
controlling your
own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective
net
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the
internet and
tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will
be one
more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't
afford to pay
tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It
will drive
the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and
CableCos because
those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones
that have
access to everything on the internet.

- Larry Yunker

- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
mailto:wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

 http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html

http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

 The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA)
has come
 down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the
pressure
 groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
 /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb
news
 break, /June 15).

 Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and
 manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed
 *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of
 *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for
debate but
 clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality
factions.WCA
 claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced
 communications over broadband 

[WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters

2006-06-20 Thread danlist
I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1 or 2
POTS jacks.

We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works well
with asterisk that would be great

Thanks


Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about 
dial-tone.


We've reached agreement!  I agree completely.  I missed where your comments 
were defined towards business customers.  Wisps that I work with serve 
predominantly residential customers, which was my 2 cents.  I know some of 
the wisps here target business markets.  Nothing wrong with that, and IMO 
it's a more profitable market to serve, too.


BTW, most all of the same features you cite have been available with ISDN 
for years before VoIP without gaining any traction with business customers 
whatsoever.  Tried ISDN myself for a few years.  Like everything else, I 
wanted to have my own hands-on experience with it ... and then dropped it 
after a few years going back to analog POTS!


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone


I beg to differ... Find-me/follow-me, Outlook Integration, Billing Platform 
Integration, video phone, do not disturb, call logs, distributed call 
centers, IVR, and the list goes on VoIP is actually more than a phone. 
But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about 
dial-tone. From experience, Caller ID, Call Forward and Voicemail are the 
most popular features, especially with so many SOHO.


- Peter

Rich Comroe wrote:

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically 
offers you a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest 
Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from 
the feature list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free 
features ... they're just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em 
attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into 
all local service whether you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local 
/ long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this. 
The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said 
about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry 
ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich


--
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] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great.  I love it, and use it 
myself.  Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other 
techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call 
just has an ordinary phone).  Ya'never'know.  But I wouldn't wager any money 
that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads.  Just 
my opinion.


On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again 
... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free 
picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. 
Didn't really interest me.  But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're 
describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't 
want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one 
particular desk).  Problem is with most residential and most small business 
is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the 
phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere).  Again, just my opinion.


I don't see any VoIP killer-apps.  It's just a phone that is at the moment 
offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required to 
charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are 
required to charge (at the moment).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich

In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the 
features

one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play
but it's a step in the right direction.
Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as 
a
feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines 
when
setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have 
one
phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup 
on

standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features and
save $$ at the same time :)

Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features
than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers 
you

a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech
area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature
list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... 
they're
just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the 
phone

company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether
you want 'em or not.

For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local /
long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The
same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about
ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature

EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN
eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).

Rich

- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a
cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed
out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper
calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to 
add



new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for
game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be 
nearly



as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done
before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers
focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good
news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something
different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a
gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's
more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of
the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to
callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's
nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a
telephone replacement service 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
grinIt Still Doesn't Work would be ISDW!/grin  Got a chuckle out of 
your reply but I get your meaning.  Asked the question, What is ISDN, the 
answer you're thinking of is I Still Don't Know.  I'm sure that's the one 
you were thinking of.  Got'ta love ISDN.


I actually tried it for awhile.  In my near-Chicago suburb I ordered it, the 
phone company tried for 10 weeks to make it work (unsuccessfully) because 
the local office and technicians obviously had no experience with it 
whatsoever (secret meaning: I was the first in my area to have ever ordered 
ISDN service!).  Ultimately I had to debug the service myself (and then tell 
the phone company how to fix it).  It was pretty depressing to go through 
the exercise ... no wonder the phone company couldn't sell ISDN service. 
Then there was the incident when an A band destination that I maintained a 
constant connection to had an equipment failure and kept disconnecting, 
while my equipment kept reconnecting.  Unmetered still had a $0.03 (3 cent) 
connection charge, and my next months bill was $800!!! Got a MUD report and 
it listed roughly 30,000 connections!  The other party kicked in to cover 
half of my phone bill since it was their equipment failure which caused the 
problem.


ISDN ... got'ta love it ... not!
Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN).

Travis
Microserv


Rich Comroe wrote:

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically 
offers you a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest 
Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from 
the feature list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free 
features ... they're just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em 
attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into 
all local service whether you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local 
/ long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this. 
The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said 
about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry 
ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's 
a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have 
pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide 
cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the 
ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When 
looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends 
not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't 
have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many 
VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something 
different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies 
offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea 
seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find 
useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service 
is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability 
to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular 
solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide 
something more than just a telephone replacement service when it comes 
to VoIP.


--


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/




--
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] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
That was my experience exactly!  Finally used my own protocol analyzer (my 
PC) and saw each Q931 request being auto-repeated before the first D channel 
acks came back (there was nearly a SECOND of D channel delay!!).  At that 
point it was obvious and I had the phone technicians switch me from a 
supposedly ISDN capable brand new fiber line unit to an old SLIC96 they had 
available and the problem immediately went away (and my phone started 
working).  Ahhh, the good old days...


You're right ... the phone company tech's had no idea how to make it work 
(or trouble shoot their own equipment).  Worse yet, the Ameritech 
technicians had been issued ISDN capable CAT box's that were oblivious to D 
channel delay (so they were swearing it was working because their test box 
said it was working).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Thats because ISDN really stands for I Still Don't No...

Back in the 80's when Bellsouth introduced it in Nashville, the techs had 
to make repeated stops

at my house to finally get it going.  Probably 20 of them.

Bellsouth introduced it, without bothering to show their
employees how to make it work.  Still, it was lots
better than 2400 baud to access FIDONET



- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN).

Travis
Microserv




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

I'd say we need to support WCA's post.
In politics it possible to get a double standard to pass.
ILECS / Cable companies need Net Neutrality, wireless providers do not.

Do you know what it would do to our cell phone bills, if Internet enabled 
Cell phones were required to allow users to use application of their choice 
such as IP TV? Call quality could get destroyed.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA 
claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced 
communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from 
net-neutrality regulation


With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks, 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive 
broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing 
heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part 
of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest 
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
/search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement.


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House floor 
vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating 
repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality laws and to 
give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate *Committee 
on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive communications-reform 
bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well as to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net neutrality 
bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related stories in 
today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday (reschuled 
from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust, 
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has slated a 
hearing on the impact of the proposed ATT/BellSouth merger (in light of 
consolidating telcos becoming a factor in the net-neutrality fight).


--


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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
I only mentioned Mikrotik as its abilty to pass large packets has been 
tested.
I believe we couldn't do that with StarOS as a limitation of Wifi clients 
(although not positive, as I did not investigate WDS options on StarOS which 
allows the large packets and full passing bridge features.) With that 
asside, I guess it would be fair to consider StarOS, Ikarus, and Mikrotik as 
the same class product. I actually wanted to classify it by hardware class 
such as OEM Atheros products. But technically thatdefinition would include 
Alvarion.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 
6K



Hi Tom,

Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that
Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing,
hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution

While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the
convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its
flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature

If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself
genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then,
documentation gets a bit sparse there...)

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $
6K


Paul,

Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests
in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were
not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from

Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware
(not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with
the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds
were a bit higher in some some cases.  (Take note we only got accurate
speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the
situation) modulation for testing).

I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to
Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP.
We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy
environments (for us almost everywhere :-)
Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik.

Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost
perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same
thing at a fraction of the cost.  Mikrotik has changed this market and
forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive.  Mikrotik is

doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down.  (I'd argue that
Trango is still doing it also).

It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to
Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant
features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today,

if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and
price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $
6K



Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a
Mikrotik/N-Streme solution.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for
under $ 6K

So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware
4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the
business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers
are NET
throughput:

Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS
64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952
128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982
256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392
512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693
1024 37.02/4432 44.82/5366
1280 38.93/3743 45.99/4422
1518 36.69/2982 44.63/3627

This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the
numbers
are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them.
But
the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the
frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to
capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small
64bit
frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
Maybe a better way to do it would be to exclude UNlicensed wireless 
providers from Net Neutrality, but include all other wireless providers :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the interests of 
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of 
which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). 
With statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be 
looking out for the interests unlicensed WISPs.


If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to controlling your 
own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective net 
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet 
and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will be 
one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to 
pay tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It will 
drive the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos 
because those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones 
that have access to everything on the internet.


- Larry Yunker

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA 
claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced 
communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from 
net-neutrality regulation


With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks, 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive 
broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing 
heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are 
part of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest 
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
/search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement.


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House floor 
vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating 
repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality laws and to 
give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate *Committee 
on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive communications-reform 
bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well as to 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net 
neutrality bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related 
stories in today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday 
(reschuled from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on 
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has 
slated a hearing on the impact of the proposed ATT/BellSouth merger (in 
light of consolidating 

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Thanks Matt.
That clears up my confusion.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS)




Tom DeReggi wrote:

Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move 
this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx 
appropriaite for the region where that customer resides.


Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone 
number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the 
PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not 
match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS 
line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do that 
you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with your 
VoIP service.


The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection to 
every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability to 
make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to be a 
CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that includes 
E911.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K



The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no 
harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market 
pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, and 
they want, they switch.The trouble come in when there is monopoly or 
large scale advantage.Just because one does not like the actions of 
theirmonoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the option to switch 
based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to a much larger group 
of people.Net Neutrality is required to protect against monster 
companies unscrupulously controling the market (or Internet ). Thus 
opening up the arguement that a double standard law easilly could be justified, 
controllingTelcos and Cable companies but not small 
independants.

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Stephen Patrick 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 
PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - 
  was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
  
  Nice one Jeff... Absolutely 
  right - and our over-priced currency deserves some 
  stick, not us (the people)  
  :-) 
  -Original Message- From: Jeff 
  Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
  Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA 
  General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps 
  - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K 
  "I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's 
  worth."  Now that's 
  harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. 
  Figuring it correctly: 
  "just my 1.0871p worth" 
  :-) 
  -- 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.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
I have $9 a month unmetered long distance, and $30 unmetered Europe long 
distance.  But some how I managed to get a $2000 long distance bill, that is 
now in dispute, and ended up in our home phone lines (long distance and 
local lines) being disconnected by Verizon. Good thing I was not using 
Verizon unmetered long distance for my Business, or I would have had to pay 
the $2000 worth of Verizon Fraudulently charged charges.  VOIP has it 
benefits. It keeps the the world honest. If it were not for VOIP, I would 
not have the abilty to have a home phone now.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 to 
$2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be 
paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so 
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to 
voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month 
on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread danlist
 
 While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the
 convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its
 flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature
 
 If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself
 genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then,
 documentation gets a bit sparse there...)
 
 -Charles


Mikrotik provides an advanced wireless solution that Star-Os /Ikarus DO NOT, in
several different ways, 1st, they provide a polling solution for PTMP (nstream)
and they also provide an FDX solution for PTP using Nstream2, this is all with
the same hardware/radio's.  2nd, using the additional features of the L3, you
can load balance across 2 radio's for a faster HDX solution ( maybe this could
be done w/ star-os/ikarus, not sure)

And there is more you can do by combining those 2 solutions.

Dan


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 20, 2006, at 4:37 PM, David Sovereen wrote:

How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from  
other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.



We don't



How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate  
from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP  
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from  
Vonage or anyone else.



We don't

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other  
traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.



We don't

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you  
see my point.


These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure  
a quality of service my customers expect.


Net neutrality takes these controls away.

I don't want government regulated internet service, but at the same  
time I don't agree with your position. We provide a raw internet  
service to our customers. They don't pay us to filter or prioritize  
it in anyway. As such, doing any filtering or prioritizing may be at  
odds with the customer's needs.


Ask yourself why you filter or prioritize in the first place. Almost  
always the answer is oversubscription... you have sold the customer  
more services than you are capable of delivering. There is nothing  
wrong with a best effort service when it is sold as such. On the  
other hand, when you sell a dedicated SLA-based service I believe you  
have no business over subscribing or filtering the service in any way.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband, the phone company, and a lot of money

2006-06-20 Thread David E. Smith
This is turning out to be a fun little read:

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm (there's a link on that
page to download their 400-page PDF book, free this week only, after
that it's $20)

This book alleges that over the past twenty years, the various RBOCs
have essentially scammed $200 billion out of their customers (that's
most of us) and the government, with various promises of delivering an
open fiber-based network to basically everywhere presently served by
copper lines. Allegedly, telcos have promised fiber to virtually every
home in the States, 45Mbps network connections, 500 TV channels, and
possibly fuzzy stuffed animals for all your children.

It's a bit of a difficult read; it reminds me of The X-Files, in a bad
way. (The paranoid conspiracy wacko way, not the  Dana Scully is
yummy way.) But give it a go; like I said, it's free if you grab a copy
this week, and you can read it later at your leisure.

If this book's claims are true (granted, that's an awful big if), a
lot of people should probably be really torqued.

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
Businesses with multiple lines and many employees are not able to buy  
unmetered service.


-Matt

On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US  
long distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To  
save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean  
they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay  
federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that  
(which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same  
monthly.  I'm not seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are  
ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long  
distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US).  Is  
$60/mo unmetered local  long distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates  
are so cheap that some of them would actually increase their  
costs by moving to voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000  
per month on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Rich, I don't agree.  My Lingo service is $20 a line, unlimited calling to
Europe-US-Canada, and I use simultaneous ring to cell when I'm away, I use
voicemail-to-Email (instantaneous) when I'm at the office or away, and use
quite a few other features.  My ATT line was 3 times that and no Europe
(when you finally get the bill with universal sevice fees, taxes, etc.).

I put my second line on Lingo...it's seldom used and pay $15 for 500 minutes
which is rarely approached by even 1/2.

It's hard to beat.  And, I can take my tiny box to Budapest and have my home
phone in the Kempinski hotel room.  But, I don't have to because of
simultaneous ring to my Skype-in number.  Maybe it's just the fun of
somebody who grew up before the Carterphone decision.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone 

Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great.  I love it, and use it 
myself.  Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other 
techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call 
just has an ordinary phone).  Ya'never'know.  But I wouldn't wager any money

that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads.  Just 
my opinion.

On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again 
... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free 
picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. 
Didn't really interest me.  But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're 
describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't 
want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one 
particular desk).  Problem is with most residential and most small business 
is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the

phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere).  Again, just my opinion.

I don't see any VoIP killer-apps.  It's just a phone that is at the moment 
offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required to

charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are 
required to charge (at the moment).

Rich

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone


 Rich

 In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
 Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the 
 features
 one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play
 but it's a step in the right direction.
 Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as 
 a
 feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines 
 when
 setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have 
 one
 phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup 
 on
 standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features and
 save $$ at the same time :)

 Tony

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Rich Comroe
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:03 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

 Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
 features
 than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers 
 you
 a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech
 area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature
 list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... 
 they're
 just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the 
 phone
 company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether
 you want 'em or not.

 For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local /
 long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The
 same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about
 ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
 feature
 EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN
 eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was
 Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).

 Rich

 - Original Message -
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone


 VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
 http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


 For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a
 cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people 

Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

2006-06-20 Thread Brian Rohrbacher
He gave me the final prices for these, so if anyone was interested, I 
can forward it to you.

OFFLIST
Brian

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED]

David Sovereen wrote:

I'm interested in a unit, but haven't got a response.  Is 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] the right address?
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Patrick Shoemaker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:28 AM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

There is a group purchase for these going on over at the Broadband
Reports WISP forum.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716~mode=flat
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716%7Emode=flat

I will be purchasing one to try it out.  I figure for about $1000 it
ought to be worth it, especially for WISP use.  I expect some clumsy
features and inconveniences, but I'm willing to live with that for
the
price.  With the group purchase we will save a couple hundred
bucks.  If
you're interested, get in touch with John (binary1000) quickly as he
will be placing orders soon.

Patrick

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

 I am looking at the Spectran HF-4080. looks like a nice little
handheld

 Spectrum Analyzer for the price.

 http://test1.contenttest.net/Spektrumanalysator_en.shtml#(look
 bottom left)

 With the extra ram for plotting, it is about $1000 US.

 Is it as good piece of hardware for the price?


 Brian





-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
mailto: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] ATA - SIP Adapters

2006-06-20 Thread Mac Dearman
Dan,

  We have bought a lot of stuff from these folks and these adapters are
really highly recommended and have worked well.

http://www.voipsupply.com/product_info.php?products_id=321

Mac Dearman


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:38 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters

I am wondering if there are any suggestions for an ATA - SIP Adapter with 1
or 2
POTS jacks.

We are running asterisk, so if you have experience with an ATA that works
well
with asterisk that would be great

Thanks


Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006
 

-- 
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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I'd like to point out that it can work the other way, when the telcos and
cabelcos demand a premium above the normal price to be able to access all
services or have your VOIP phone work at all, or watch live video, or any
one of a number of items.

IF you think that backbone providers are going to begin filtering or
prioritizing or deprioritizing traffic, then your scenario may hold, but
unless the backbone provider is also the CONTENT provider, I don't see that
scenario happening.

When or if the big boy providers begin charging a premium for full service
access at the last mile, then I'd say that provides an opportunity for us
independents, not harm.   However, seeing the utter chaos and complete lack
of common sense that has prevailed in and around our industry since it's
inception, I'd say predicting which of the above scenarios holds
true...well... might be an exercise in futility.



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the interests of
 Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of
 which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs).
With
 statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking
out
 for the interests unlicensed WISPs.

 If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to controlling your
 own network, you have missed the entire point.  Without effective net
 neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet
and
 tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will be one
 more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay
 tariffs to get their subscribers access to premium content.  It will
drive
 the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos
because
 those networks will be the only fast networks or the only ones that have
 access to everything on the internet.

 - Larry Yunker

 - Original Message - 
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


  WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
 
  http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
  http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450
 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come
  down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure
  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress
  /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news
  break, /June 15).
 
  Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and
  manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed
  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of
  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an e-forum for debate but
  clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality
factions.WCA
  claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced
  communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from
  net-neutrality regulation
 
  With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that
  wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks,
  said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. Net-neutrality
  regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more
competitive
  broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing
  heavily in WiMAX /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of
  next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are
part
  of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem.
 
  Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable
  Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable 
  Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications
  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *ATT*,
  *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest /search/?query=Qwest
  Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon
  /search/?query=Verizon Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.
 
  With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless
  broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would
  discourage investment, adding, More innovation and competition are the
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government
  micromanagement.
 
  The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House
floor
  

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki



You guys that post using this incredibly annoying 
bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational 
email impossible...

Read on below. comments are prefaced 
with 


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence 
to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at 
neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
WIRES!-

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
  equal access to all content on the Internet.
  
   I don't see the 
  problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
  other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
  
  How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
  
   Me too, but this has 
  little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, 
  and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service 
  has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's 
  dream. 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
  only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
  traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
  
   I will eventually, and 
  I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, 
  if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A 
  fraud? 
  
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
  again.
  
   Yeah. Me 
  too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access 
  to content. 
  
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
  
  These controls are important for me to manage my 
  network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
  
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
  
   I seriously doubt 
  that. 
  
  Dave
  
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
  
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality
The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for 
the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big 
Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell 
South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't 
believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests 
unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the 
path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire 
point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and 
the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the 
traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the 
coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get 
their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive the 
customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because 
those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only ones that 
have "access" to everything on the internet.- Larry 
Yunker- Original Message - From: "Peter R." [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "WISPA General 
List" wireless@wispa.orgSent: 
Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against 
Net Neutrality WCA Weighs In Against Net 
Neutrality http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 
The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
 down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the 
pressure  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress  
/search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
 break, /June 15). Representing about 250 companies 
in broadband wireless carriage and  manufacturing, WCA has teamed 
with the recently formed  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by 
Scott Cleland, president of  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself 
as an "e-forum" for debate but  clearly positions itself among the 
vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA  claims its motive is to 
promote growth and innovation in advanced  communications over 
broadband wireless by protecting the 

Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband, the phone company, and a lot of money

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I'd take whatever this says with a LARGE load of salt.

For instance, this paragraph:   New franchises? Verizon's FiOS and ATT's
Lightspeed are inferior services. We're 16th in broadband because they
companies conned the American Public and never delivered. Asia has 100 Mbps
services for $40 bucks... and we have?

This is misleading, if you want to be diplomatic and kind to the writer.
If you want to be blunt, it's a stupid lie.

There are many reasons for this:   One, every cheap service that gets
brought up is NEVER cheap.   The retail price to the consumer is low, but
the consumer is usually paying a massive tax premium far in excess of
Americans to buy a service they neither need nor want.

Population density for many of these deployments is usually many times what
it is here in the US, and real cost of providing service to far-flung rural
areas isnt' cheap.

We pioneered most of this stuff.   American dollars often paid for the
research and the development that made these things mass producible in
countries that didn't invent a single iota of it.

If we're 16th in broadband acceptance by consumers, it's because consumers
aren't buying it.   Figure out why, and you have your perfect marketing
tool.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband, the phone company,and a lot of
money


 This is turning out to be a fun little read:

 http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm (there's a link on that
 page to download their 400-page PDF book, free this week only, after
 that it's $20)

 This book alleges that over the past twenty years, the various RBOCs
 have essentially scammed $200 billion out of their customers (that's
 most of us) and the government, with various promises of delivering an
 open fiber-based network to basically everywhere presently served by
 copper lines. Allegedly, telcos have promised fiber to virtually every
 home in the States, 45Mbps network connections, 500 TV channels, and
 possibly fuzzy stuffed animals for all your children.

 It's a bit of a difficult read; it reminds me of The X-Files, in a bad
 way. (The paranoid conspiracy wacko way, not the  Dana Scully is
 yummy way.) But give it a go; like I said, it's free if you grab a copy
 this week, and you can read it later at your leisure.

 If this book's claims are true (granted, that's an awful big if), a
 lot of people should probably be really torqued.

 David Smith
 MVN.net
 -- 
 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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe



why do you do it?

I'm a top poster. I hate having to 
essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments 
(especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah 
me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I 
prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top 
along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below 
for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the 
reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each 
reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible).

I know it's a religious preference / argument and 
there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to 
know"why", so ...

peace
Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark Koskenmaki 
  
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  You guys that post using this incredibly annoying 
  bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c 
  onversational email impossible...
  
  Read on below. comments are prefaced 
  with 
  
  
  North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence 
  to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at 
  neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
  WIRES!-
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David Sovereen 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality 
legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to 
force open and equal access to all content on the Internet.

 I don't see the 
problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

How many WISPs on this listare limiting 
P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I 
am.

 Me too, but this has 
little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves 
HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of 
Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was 
someone's dream. 

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing 
VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. 
And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not 
VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else.

 I will eventually, 
and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after 
all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am 
I? A fraud? 

How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
again.

 Yeah. Me 
too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting 
access to content. 

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
over, but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage 
my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

 I seriously doubt 
that. 

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands 
  for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other 
  big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, 
  Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I 
  don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests 
  unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the 
  path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire 
  point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs 
  and the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the 
  traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the 
  coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to 
  get their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive 
  the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos 
  because those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only 
  ones that have "access" to everything on the internet.- Larry 
 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe

Very cool.  I love gadgets too ... got'ta play with them all.


Rich, I don't agree.


But I've no idea what I said that you disagree with.  What I said was I 
don't see VoIP providing advanced services that the consumer marketplace as 
a whole is going to pick-up (for example, the way caller-id has ... 
everybody has it now).  What I believe the consumer marketplace wants is 
talk minutes (disagreeing with the post that started this thread ... which 
says VoIP is incorrectly competing as cheap minutes, while what they should 
be selling is advanced features).   Tony replied: what about IP 
video-conferencing or multiple numbers.  In the email you're disagreeing 
with I said: come on ... the general consumer isn't going to go for these in 
a big way.  Is this what you're disagreeing with, because you use these 
features?


I have a constant debate over how bright or technically savvy the average 
consumer is.  There's a lot of bright people.  But never make the mistake of 
presuming the people you deal with on the cutting-edge of broadband are 
representative of the general marketplace.  It ain't so.  It ain't even 
close.  The fact that you use these advanced features is great.  I bet a lot 
of people on this list do.  I do.  But a lot of the people on the list 
(especially those that work with residential consumers) can speak volumes 
from their experience.  And (I might add) I bet those that subscribe to 
wireless broadband may be closer to the cutting-edge than to the general 
population. (scarey).  Virtually everybody's got a phone.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich, I don't agree.  My Lingo service is $20 a line, unlimited calling to
Europe-US-Canada, and I use simultaneous ring to cell when I'm away, I use
voicemail-to-Email (instantaneous) when I'm at the office or away, and use
quite a few other features.  My ATT line was 3 times that and no Europe
(when you finally get the bill with universal sevice fees, taxes, etc.).

I put my second line on Lingo...it's seldom used and pay $15 for 500 
minutes

which is rarely approached by even 1/2.

It's hard to beat.  And, I can take my tiny box to Budapest and have my 
home

phone in the Kempinski hotel room.  But, I don't have to because of
simultaneous ring to my Skype-in number.  Maybe it's just the fun of
somebody who grew up before the Carterphone decision.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great.  I love it, and use 
it

myself.  Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other
techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call
just has an ordinary phone).  Ya'never'know.  But I wouldn't wager any 
money


that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads.  Just
my opinion.

On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service 
(again

... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free
picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing.
Didn't really interest me.  But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're
describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't
want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one
particular desk).  Problem is with most residential and most small 
business
is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all 
the


phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere).  Again, just my opinion.

I don't see any VoIP killer-apps.  It's just a phone that is at the moment
offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required 
to


charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are
required to charge (at the moment).

Rich

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich

In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the
features
one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and 
play

but it's a step in the right direction.
Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as
a
feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines
when
setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have
one
phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup
on
standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features 
and

Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband, the phone company, and Bruce

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

I guess you have to know Bruce Kushnick to understand the book.
He was a consultant for the Big Boys. When he couldn't stomach how they 
were ripping everyone off, he switched sides.
He has piles of data - much of it from the ILECs themselves in press 
releases, PUC statements, etc.
Get the book like you say it is free this week, but he could sure 
use the $20 if you think it is worth it.


And yes his style is kind-of X-Files Mulder.
Maybe in the next version he can add some pics of Scully :)

- Peter



David E. Smith wrote:


This is turning out to be a fun little read:

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm (there's a link on that
page to download their 400-page PDF book, free this week only, after
that it's $20)

This book alleges that over the past twenty years, the various RBOCs
have essentially scammed $200 billion out of their customers (that's
most of us) and the government, with various promises of delivering an
open fiber-based network to basically everywhere presently served by
copper lines. Allegedly, telcos have promised fiber to virtually every
home in the States, 45Mbps network connections, 500 TV channels, and
possibly fuzzy stuffed animals for all your children.

It's a bit of a difficult read; it reminds me of The X-Files, in a bad
way. (The paranoid conspiracy wacko way, not the  Dana Scully is
yummy way.) But give it a go; like I said, it's free if you grab a copy
this week, and you can read it later at your leisure.

If this book's claims are true (granted, that's an awful big if), a
lot of people should probably be really torqued.

David Smith
MVN.net
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Wv Coverage anyone?

2006-06-20 Thread chris cooper
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K













Im looking for some connectivity in Huntington and Charleston West Virginia. If anyone can help, hit me off list.



Thanks

Chris 






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


I'd take whatever this says with a LARGE load of salt.

For instance, this paragraph:   New franchises? Verizon's FiOS and ATT's
Lightspeed are inferior services. We're 16th in broadband because they
companies conned the American Public and never delivered. Asia has 100 Mbps
services for $40 bucks... and we have?

This is misleading, if you want to be diplomatic and kind to the writer.
If you want to be blunt, it's a stupid lie.

In 1998 Verizon received rate increases when they promised Pennsylvania 
45MB to the home. That was 1998. Today, you are lucky if you can get 
30MB to the home - and 85% of that is reserved for IPTV. And you have to 
live in an affluent neighborhood that probably is already lit for cable 
and DSL.
But consumers in PA have paid for their network to the tune of $2B since 
1998.


Yeah, density, geography, rural, blah, blah. Jaguar Comm is rural in 
Minnesota and he is rolling out FTTH to his customers. CavTel in VA has 
already rolled out IPTV. There are 700+ muni BB projects because of 
false promises from RBOCs.  Instead of spending millions on lobbyists 
and litigation, BUILD THE DAMN NETWORK.


If you understand redlining and the fact that the numbers say it is less 
than $1000 to pass fiber to a home, you have to wonder how often they 
can lie in print and get away with it.


There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - geography, 
people are happy with dial-up, not everyone has access to a computer, 
libraries offer free access, people get online at work, yadda yadda. 
Doesn't take away from the fact that they are only building the network 
for TV - or we would still be stuck with 3MB DSL.


- Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
I'd like to point out that the RBOCs own the backbone, the last mile, 
and the cellular companies, so if they filter or prioritize it should be 
interesting. Word is L3 is buying all fiber so that they can be equals 
with VZ  att.


- Peter

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

 I'd take whatever this says with a LARGE load of salt.
 
 For instance, this paragraph:   New franchises? Verizon's FiOS and
ATT's
 Lightspeed are inferior services. We're 16th in broadband because they
 companies conned the American Public and never delivered. Asia has 100
Mbps
 services for $40 bucks... and we have?
 
 This is misleading, if you want to be diplomatic and kind to the writer.
 If you want to be blunt, it's a stupid lie.
 
 In 1998 Verizon received rate increases when they promised Pennsylvania
 45MB to the home. That was 1998. Today, you are lucky if you can get
 30MB to the home - and 85% of that is reserved for IPTV. And you have to
 live in an affluent neighborhood that probably is already lit for cable
 and DSL.
 But consumers in PA have paid for their network to the tune of $2B since
 1998.

And the consumers in all these other countries are not paying huge money in
taxes to get subsidized services they would not or could not buy if they
were to pay the price voluntarily?

And who says that thier systems ACTUALLY perform as ... claimed?


 Yeah, density, geography, rural, blah, blah. Jaguar Comm is rural in
 Minnesota and he is rolling out FTTH to his customers. CavTel in VA has
 already rolled out IPTV. There are 700+ muni BB projects because of
 false promises from RBOCs.  Instead of spending millions on lobbyists
 and litigation, BUILD THE DAMN NETWORK.

Muni BB is just a false promise and it's going to hurt us all.


 If you understand redlining and the fact that the numbers say it is less
 than $1000 to pass fiber to a home, you have to wonder how often they
 can lie in print and get away with it.

I don't believe it's under 1000 / home  to deploy fiber, not for a moment.
Heck, just in my tiny town of 275 homes, that would mean it would cost about
300K to deploy?   That seems really, REALLY cheap.   But even worse, at a
40% take rate, it would not provide anywhere NEAR enough revenue to make it
viable unless the cost was at least 100 / mo.




 There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - geography,
 people are happy with dial-up, not everyone has access to a computer,
 libraries offer free access, people get online at work, yadda yadda.
 Doesn't take away from the fact that they are only building the network
 for TV - or we would still be stuck with 3MB DSL.

And this is bad...how?

Other than it provides political fodder for politicians, and rhetoric for
activists, I simply can't see why this is any national concern.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-


 - Peter
 -- 
 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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K



While it may sound great to have a "double standard 
law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us 
that.

For years, telephone companies have been heavily 
regulated while cable companies have not.

DSL was subject to regulation. Cable was 
not.

In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X 
Internet Supreme Court Decision. The FCC deregulated DSL and is working 
toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium. 
The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, 
broadband over powerlines,whatever you can think of --to be subject 
to the same rules and regulations.

Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to 
cable and DSL and not to wirelessjust isn't realistic.

We need to support that which is good for all 
broadband providers.

If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, 
or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that 
way. If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to 
filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would 
be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants 
to. Matt's network is Matt's network. He built it. He designed 
it. He can do with is as he wants. My network is my network. I 
built it. I designed it. I feel it is my right to do with is as I 
want. If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another 
service. Letsupply and demand and free-market economics decide who 
wins and who fails, not government. Don't let the government regulate what 
we do and how we do it. I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my 
right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their 
way.

According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and 
not likely to see any action this election year. Nonetheless, I'd like to 
know WISPA's position on this. This is an issue that, if passed, would 
have effects on many of WISPA's members. This is the type of issue that, I 
think, WISPA should be encouraging its members to write congresspeople 
about.

Regards,

Dave

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom 
  DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:56 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - 
  was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
  
  The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no 
  harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market 
  pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, 
  and they want, they switch.The trouble come in when there is 
  monopoly or large scale advantage.Just because one does not like the 
  actions of theirmonoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the 
  option to switch based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to 
  a much larger group of people.Net Neutrality is required to 
  protect against monster companies unscrupulously controling the market (or 
  Internet ). Thus opening up the arguement that a double standard law 
  easilly could be justified, controllingTelcos and Cable companies but 
  not small independants.
  
  Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
  Broadband
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Stephen Patrick 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 
PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps 
- was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

Nice one Jeff... Absolutely 
right - and our over-priced currency deserves some 
stick, not us (the people)  
:-) 
-Original Message- From: 
Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA 
General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and 
fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K 

"I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's 
worth."  Now that's 
harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. 
Figuring it correctly: 
"just my 1.0871p worth" 
:-) 
-- 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.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Sam Tetherow

Responses inline...

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left...  
why do you do it?   It makes c onversational email impossible...
 
Read on below.   comments are prefaced with 
 
 
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061

personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
-

- Original Message -
*From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
   I don't see the problem with content companies and

subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

Not according to what you reply below.  Limiting P2P and prioritizing 
VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.


 
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from

other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
  Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since

peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.


So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality.  If VZ can't 
deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to 
deprioritize peer to peer traffic.   Who is to say that P2P traffic is 
less important than VOIP?


 
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate

from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
Vonage or anyone else.
 
  I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to

whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?

Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are 
saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web 
traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P 
traffic.  This seems pretty arbitrary to me.  What if I as a provider 
feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?  After all I 
am in the business of providing internet service not voice.  What if I 
prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC 
before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP 
bandwidth?  Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP 
prioritization?


 
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other

traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
  Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do

with limiting access to content.

Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any 
different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?


Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my 
edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for 
some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal 
access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it all?


 
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you

see my point.
 
These controls are important for me to manage my network and

ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
 
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
  I seriously doubt that. 

Why?  If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service 
over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on 
your network?


 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151

989-837-3780 fax
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.mercury.net http://www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640


- Original Message -
*From:* Larry Yunker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General
List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the
interests of
Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell
Carriers (many of
which incidentally are owned 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Larry Yunker



Dave,

I can see your points and I agree that 
OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list. 
Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enablebackbone 
providers of the internet toweed out the smaller providers by 
deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc. I think that 
the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would 
differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality.

Since the success of the internethas long 
beenbased on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I 
think the goal should be toprohibit backbone providers from discriminating 
based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic. 
This means that in an ideal scenario, the 
government would prevent the likes of L3/ATT/Verizon from even looking at 
the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone. They don't need 
to know what the traffic is. Rather,their business is to get that 
traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing 
capacity. They shouldnot be positioned to decideWHO gets to 
have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time. If 
this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone 
providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor 
should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to 
themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their 
competitors). 


I realize that taking this stance against 
"Tiered-Access Internet" forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will 
lead totrueend-to-end QoSon the public internet. Yet, 
I'd rather havetoday's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather 
than"tomorrow's internet"monopolized by 
Ma-Bell.

Please note:I think that last-mile providers 
ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO 
THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary. If you want to 
blockyour own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or 
downloading moviesthatshould be your prerogative.Perhaps 
you should be requiredto disclose this "limited-access" internet service 
to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your ownpolicies 
regardingthe traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS. I see no 
reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond 
requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies. I figure it 
this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content 
to/from your clients, the clientsusually have to opportunity to switch to 
another provider. IF you are the only provider of service in the area, 
thenone could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors 
to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers.

The core policy reason to regulate backbone 
providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the 
globe without unnecessary limitations. This same policy reason does not 
apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can 
all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our 
packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet! The real question 
is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL 
difference.

- Larry


- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:37 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
  equal access to all content on the Internet.
  
  How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
  
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
  traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
  only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
  traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
  
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
  again.
  
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
  
  These controls are important for me to manage my 
  network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
  
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
  
  Dave
  
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
  
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality
The WCA 

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality


 Responses inline...

   - Original Message -
  *From:* David Sovereen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org
  *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
  *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
 
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
  regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
  how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
  open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
 
 I don't see the problem with content companies and
  subscribers having equal access to each other.   That, after
  all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
 
 Not according to what you reply below.  Limiting P2P and prioritizing
 VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.

There is equal access.I limit the amount of data transferred.

 
 
  How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
  other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
 
Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
  peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
  don't generally allow.   Terms of Service has covered hosting
  forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.
 
 So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?

 In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality.  If VZ can't
 deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to
 deprioritize peer to peer traffic.   Who is to say that P2P traffic is
 less important than VOIP?

P2P works no matter jitter, latency, etc.VOIP does not.   Even video has
issues.


 
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
  from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I only prioritize VoIP
  traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
  Vonage or anyone else.
 
I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to
  whose servers it goes to...after all,  if I can't serve my
  customer's needs, then what the heck am I?   A fraud?
 
 Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are
 saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web
 traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P
 traffic.  This seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest
in my network.  My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as
well as your pages to load.   Both can happen with QOS employed, no?   Your
web page loads no matter what.   His VOIP phone needs specific network
qualities to work right.

  What if I as a provider
 feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?

I don't give a rip.   I only care about the CUSTOMER wants.

 After all I
 am in the business of providing internet service not voice.  What if I
 prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC
 before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP
 bandwidth?  Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP
 prioritization?

I dunno.  Why don't you ask them?

 
 
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
  traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am again.
 
Yeah.   Me too.   Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
  with limiting access to content.
 
 Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any
 different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?

My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack.   They do,
however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to
not have my network make them NOT work properly.


 Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my
 edge router?  What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for
 some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal
 access?  What about outgoing or incoming email?  Do I have to allow it
all?

Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to
TimeWarner's IP blocks?

 
 
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you
  see my point.
 
  These controls are important for me to manage my network and
  ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
 
  Net neutrality takes these controls away.
 
I seriously doubt that.
 
 Why?  If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service
 over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on
 your network?

Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with any of
this, but about a