Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, I just wanted to make sure you disable connection tracking. It is not required for a bridge or backhaul situation and you'll see a few per cent better throughput. Also, our routed performance exceeds the bridged throughput, so the best is using routed without connection tracking. Lonnie On 6/22/06, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.png Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing the benefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through fast-framing -- e.g., it looks like Nstream utilizes combination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amount SIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and standard WiFi 2. What are the parameters for the framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on this side w/ Nstream? 4. What about bursting? The DIF is another major point of waste in 802.11 systems. Is the DIFs automagically eliminated due to the fact that a point coordinator is being implemented or is this done via the burst-time command under the wireless interface? If so, is there a way to turn this off for point-to-point situations to achieve better performance? -Charles P.S. -- Our testing of StarOS using WDS bridging on the 266 MHz IXP Boards is yielding ~36 Mb of TCP throughput on a single 20 Mhz channel (this is w/ bursting frame concatenation turned on) --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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
The V3 code on the WAR boards is compatible 802.11a but I would not call it vanilla. This driver is tweaked for performance and we can get about 150 mbps total throughput on the 533 MHz boards. With compression and Turbo mode and using a radio repeater (input radio and output radio) we have clocked 80 mbps through the unit. We find the biggest advance we have made though, is the use of 5 MHz and 10 MHz channels. Although people have this huge desire for the fastest possible speeds we actually see that most people do not even have 10 mbps pipes to the Internet and thus a backbone that can deliver 40 mbps is quite wasted. Using smaller RF channels you can fit 11 Access points on a single tower at 2.4 GHz and they will not really interfere with each other plus you can still achieve 10+ mbps to the customer from each AP. Of course you should maintain proper antenna separation and try to keep adjacent radios a few channels apart. Lonnie On 6/22/06, Stephen Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses a passively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoor grade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the software overhead of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme repackages the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution for real rather than believing the vendor (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the proprietary extension nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect to it using a WiFi or Brand X client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses plain vanilla 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with small packet performance being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.png Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing the benefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through fast-framing -- e.g., it looks like Nstream utilizes combination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amount SIFs and ACKs that the protocol
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Dear Travis, We have "end user pricing" and "reseller/WISP" pricing and the two are different; that keeps margin in there for resellers to sell the product on, which is why our price list isn't on the website: just a matter of history, 60-70% of our customers are corporates, not service providers. That may change and we're considering an e-commerce site specifically to support WISP business. For now, to "set expectation" a complete HPR bridge (that's the one that can clock over 80Mbps through it per radio card) is less than half the price suggested by the "subject line" of this post. In quantity that drops further. That price includes all hardware, Passively-cooled HPR radio units with 1GHz CPU with 10/100 and Gig ports, 1 radio card expandable up to 5, POE injectors, pole mount U-boltsand software including fully-licensed RouterOS and our own PC-based RadioManager; comes complete pre-configured to run "out of the box" and with support from ourselves. Doesn't include RF or Ethernet cables. Anyone interested, please send me a mail and you'll get a personalised (human!) response. Have had some good response already. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 23 June 2006 05:14To: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KStephen,Could you share retail pricing on your products? I don't see any pricing listed on your website. I'm sure many people (including myself) could be interested in getting more information, etc. but it's nice to see if the product is even close to the price range we are looking.TravisMicroservStephen Patrick wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49To: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote: The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a normal PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of what is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the FCC, legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is connected to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your customer could be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP service isn't capable of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance issues for PBX vendors as well. If your customer is in an MTU and the 911 operator only has the address of a building how is someone going to be directed to the correct floor or the correct room? That information is now supposed to be provided as well. -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
A company called Teltronics (ww.teltronics.com) sells hardware for MDU 911 detection. Hotels, office buildings, apartment buildings, and campus have issues with final destination for EMS personnel on a 911 call. I would like to suggest that if you offer VoIP, especially to the AZ and FL crowd of blue hairs :) that you add a way that the 911 message can be emailed to their next of kin. - 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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample,that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal --- in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :)TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a "bad" solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features?
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Charles Wu wrote: Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their black box ticks =) Charles, Mikrotik chose not to reveal all the details on their NStreme protocol. However, some things that I do know is that it is basically the 802.11 type MAC. Part of the benefit is that the protocol overhead is reduced (a byproduct of the packet concatenation probably), the distance limitations (timing) has been removed and they have implemented an (optional) polling mechanism. These three combined will improve the overall throughput of the link. There are probably other things that make it a better solution, but this is what jumps to mind. Additionally, they have NStreme2, which is a whole different animal. This protocol is a dual radio system (point to point only) that is designed for backhauls. This protocol is not based on the 802.11 stuff (as far as I know). There is no need for polling with NStreme2. The protocol overhead is very low with NStreme2 and it is robust in the face of interference. With a dual radio (2 on each end of the link), you create a full-duplex capable link. One of the real limitations of either NStreme or NStreme2 is that they require an Atheros based card. That may not be a big deal to some, but it is something worth mentioning. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- 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)
Matt, I really appreciate your advice given on this list, as it is usually good credable advice, it helps direct people (including myself) in the right direction, and prevents replicating the wheel, by you sharing your knowledge learned. However, somethings you say, are just disrespectful and irritate me (no disrespect meant). For example: Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. I'm not aware of that going on much at all on this list, its just not true. Instead what people on this list do is THINK for themselves. They look for possible ways to get around the rules, and debate the validity of those possibilities. Why, because its how small independant providers survive, save money, stay competitive, and have the oportunity to deploy services in this industry, that so many want to see prevented or to over incumber the small provider so they go away. Secondly, a Lawyer is like an Accountant, in the sense that they are liable for the advice that they give, and their job is not to advise you how to get around the law, but instead how to comply to it with certainty, in a way that they will not be liable if they are wrong, instead stretching the rules for everything they can get out of it. Its up to the client to push the limits, based on the advise legal council has made them aware of and risk involved walking the line close. Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a technical issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good they are, Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that differentiate technical issues. Historically, even the best lawyers, tend to be technically challenged. I know I service them daily. Why, because their time is more valuable, so they pay others to learn the technical stuff for them. I don't trust a lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical issues of our industry, that we have trouble understanding ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time. (no disrepect meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal council that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised on this list). Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate costs, when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places to learn other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments, learning at trade shows, or reading common publications. I don't see much Making it up. Although I do see a lot of IDEAS. Fifthly, Sometimes people don't pay legal council because its just not cost effective during the idea phase. I'm sure most people do consult council, just like you, at the appropriate time. If you think paying council, is discovering the complete undisputable answer, you are fooling yourself. Thats why they have judges. To determine which point of view is correct, when the point of view between two legal teams on a toipic differ. Your legal council, is just one preception of the law. And I'm interested in hearing your perceptions as well, as the perceptions of the others on this list. 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 23, 2006 6:56 AM Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS) On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote: The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a normal PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of what is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the FCC, legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field. Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is connected to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your customer could be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP service isn't capable of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance issues for PBX vendors as well. If your customer is in an MTU and the 911 operator only has the address of a building how is someone going to be directed to the correct floor or the correct
Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces
I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a horse to water... Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the DeMint Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television white spaces. Do it now! They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a just reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can tactfully express that when asked where you are from. If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband use then you better act now or forever hate trees. :-) Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators. Scriv Hi John and Marlon, We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment. So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to: a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006' and b) oppose the DeMint Auction The White Spaces Amendment Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below. I would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help! Thank you, Frannie Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004 John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644 Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253 Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922 Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753 John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244 George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024 John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841 Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121 David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623 Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551 Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces
Just finished my calls! Thanks for pushing us! Rick Herrmann Zing Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a horse to water... Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the DeMint Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television white spaces. Do it now! They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a just reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can tactfully express that when asked where you are from. If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband use then you better act now or forever hate trees. :-) Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators. Scriv Hi John and Marlon, We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment. So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to: a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006' and b) oppose the DeMint Auction The White Spaces Amendment Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below. I would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help! Thank you, Frannie Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004 John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644 Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253 Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922 Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753 John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244 George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024 John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841 Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121 David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623 Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551 Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353 -- 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: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)
Tom, I have to go with Matt on this. I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney. You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he just thought up. Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes and CALEA being just a few. It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is concerned, because what is inter-connected). Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction. If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took crazy @$$ advice from a list member). - 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] Critical Time for White Spaces
I have been making calls all afternoon. If you are a WISP and want a future, you need to jump on board and help. Regards, David Weddell Director of Sales 260 827 2551 Office 260 273 7547 Cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.onlyinternet.net www.oibw.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Herrmann Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces Just finished my calls! Thanks for pushing us! Rick Herrmann Zing Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a horse to water... Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the DeMint Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television white spaces. Do it now! They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a just reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can tactfully express that when asked where you are from. If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband use then you better act now or forever hate trees. :-) Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators. Scriv Hi John and Marlon, We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment. So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to: a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006' and b) oppose the DeMint Auction The White Spaces Amendment Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below. I would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help! Thank you, Frannie Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004 John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644 Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253 Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922 Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753 John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244 George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024 John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841 Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121 David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623 Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551 Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353 -- 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] Critical Time for White Spaces
Here is the original post along with the list to call on (and a few more thoughts from me). If they ask if you called your Illinois Senators then you should probably tell them that Illinois does not have any Senators on the Commerce Committee last you checked. Then maybe they will understand why we are calling Senators from other states. Last I checked the legislation created by those lucky few Senators in the Commerce Committee were supposed to represent the interests of the nation over their own constituencies. But I digress. The fact is you are one of as many as 5000 WISPs in the US who are at the forefront of broadband delivery to the underserved and rural areas where nobody else serves. We need good spectrum to serve the 60% of potential customers we cannot with the lower power, higher frequency spectrum we have now. TV Whitespaces are critical to the future of broadband deployment in this country. It is the most important thing our Congress can do to help speed access to low cost broadband nationwide today. Make sure you tell them this at a minimum...You support the Wireless Innovation Act (or WIN Act) of 2006 portion of the Telecom Bill and you DO NOT support the DeMint Amendment which would force all TV Whitespaces to be auctioned. Thanks, Scriv Chadd Thompson wrote: Scriv, Any chance that list is still floating around that could be reposted? Or just let me know who to get a hold of in our wonderful state of IL. Thanks, Chadd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a horse to water... Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces
Nope - I called and sent emails too to David Vitter (La.) who is actually on that board. Thanks for the reminder and the swoft kick in the pants. You know you have to steer us and every once in a while pop the whip! Keep up the good work as this spectrum is VITAL to Oak and Pine infested Louisianans Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a horse to water... Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the DeMint Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television white spaces. Do it now! They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a just reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can tactfully express that when asked where you are from. If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband use then you better act now or forever hate trees. :-) Scriv John Scrivner wrote: Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators. Scriv Hi John and Marlon, We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment. So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to: a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006' and b) oppose the DeMint Auction The White Spaces Amendment Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below. I would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help! Thank you, Frannie Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004 John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644 Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253 Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922 Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753 John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244 George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024 John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841 Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121 David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623 Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551 Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353 -- 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/
