Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most
failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of
JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon.

Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network...  And at the end of a day
with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going
offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes,  I acct ually own
2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I
can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle
someone.  To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with
uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess
much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on
someone's roof.

I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the
ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due
to a lightning strike - just about 6 months.   My gateway and backhaul often
goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio
crash required a reboot.

Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put
together myself and you got something...really got something.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...




 Butch Evans wrote:
   It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router
  at the CPE is necessary.
 

 BINGO.

 Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what
 those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do...

 As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than
 our cpes, to the customer.


 -- 
 George Rogato

 Welcome to WISPA

 www.wispa.org

 http://signup.wispa.org/
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread George Rogato

Well I wish some Qwest customers would be as angry as you are and call me..

Ah, maybe not, I don't want angry customers!
:)



Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most
failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of
JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon.

Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network...  And at the end of a day
with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going
offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes,  I acct ually own
2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I
can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle
someone.  To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with
uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess
much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on
someone's roof.

I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the
ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due
to a lightning strike - just about 6 months.   My gateway and backhaul often
goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio
crash required a reboot.

Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put
together myself and you got something...really got something.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...




Butch Evans wrote:
  It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router

at the CPE is necessary.


BINGO.

Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what
those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do...

As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than
our cpes, to the customer.


--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


 Right guys, I accept all that may be true but even in the DSL world,
 customers provide their own routers and that is certainly true of
 commercial customers.

What planet do you live on?   Every DSL service I have seen in a LONG time
provides the dsl modem and router together as one device.


 In any event, VL does many of things for which you think make a router
 so critical. Even better, it does a lot of them at the RF level which
 makes the link and total network more efficient. Frankly though, I need
 one of my engineers in this type conversation; I'm just not technically
 competent enough on the networking side (and barely so in the nitty
 gritty of the RF side).

You  can't do routing, dhcp, firewalling, etc, at the RF level.


 At the same token, many here that are truly skilled remain under exposed
 on the RF side since most have not used truly sophisticated gear that
 allows for depths of tweaking beyond that which you have experienced.

What I use may not be sophisticated by your standards.   But if we look at
the overall picture,  attaching that high priced RF equipment to a linksys
router is like transplanting a pinto engine and gas tank into a humvee...

Frankly, I can't find that elusive somewhere between linksys and belkin
and the other end where imagestream and cisco live - well, except for what
I use... Which costs less and is dead reliable and excellent performing.


I
 have never encountered an old hand who, once thoroughly exposed to our
 firmware in a scaled system, did not say something along the lines of,
 Wow, I did not know that sort of thing could be even be done! or You
 mean that's all we have to do to do that? That always took me hours
 before! Basically, I think many of you have trained and become good
 street racers, but you've not yet become real race car drivers because
 you are still driving souped up street cars not realizing a real race
 car actually IS different.

Certainly most of us who deal with wifi-based gear are very much aware of
the limitations of the rf side of this setup.   It's no mystery, Patrick and
I think you grossly underestimate what we understand in that regard.
Perhaps alvarion c ould get into the business of providing a REAL mini-pci
radio, certified with various antennas, and then we'd have the better of
both worlds...




 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:25 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...



 Butch Evans wrote:
   It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router
  at the CPE is necessary.
 

 BINGO.

 Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what
 those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do...

 As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than
 our cpes, to the customer.


 -- 
 George Rogato

 Welcome to WISPA

 www.wispa.org

 http://signup.wispa.org/
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(190).
 
 







 
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(43).
 
 











 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.






 -- 
 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Patrick Leary
When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a
good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market
segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think
your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying
within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of
guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard.

So then while I congratulate Lonnie's innovation, he needs to come clean
and go legal. Sorry Lonnie, but yes if you are doing this it does gall
me. It galls me when folks outside our borders go around the legal paths
to our market. It's cheesy. It's dishonest. It's anti-competitive. And
it's simply illegal. You've done all the work, why not go legal? If not,
do you have any right to complain if someone copies your soft work and
sells it as his own? Or do you think, Hey, that's different, he's
damaging me! 

You guys may not like the rules, but they are there and the rest of us
have to abide by them and incur all the expense required to play by the
rules. 

And if you are an operator reading this, do you really think staying
under the legal power limit makes you righteous? It makes you no more
righteous that a guy beside you on the tower that does a beautiful NEC
poster child of an install but does not have legal right to use the
tower. 

I know many find this attitude insulting and I know as a vendor I'm
supposed to just hold my tongue so as not to piss people off, because
there will be those who might say, Because of that attitude I've never
buy one Alvarion radio! Maybe so, but I can accept that because this
stuff weakens all WISPs claims, all attempts to be regarded as
legitimate players, and it sucker punches all of us who fight on your
behalf.

For sure, in doing so you can't ever complain about the person that
sneaks into the ball game for free, right behind home plate, while you
and your family paid. Don't you ever complain that your neighbor's kid
gets a student grant because his parents hide income when yours can't
qualify because your family makes too much. Don't you ever complain
about a rancher or farmer getting over on you on water rights because no
one's looking. And don't complain about the Yahoo next door using an
illegal amp.

Illegal WISPs equivocate by saying, Hey, I'm within the power limits.
I'm not hurting anyone. Well, it's not true. You are hurting every
legitimate WISP and every legitimate vendor, and in turn you hurt the
entire industry. And some WISPs have the gall to say, why won't someone
build X? Well, maybe because so many WISPs to save themselves a buck
will buy illegal product that it discourages investment from legit
players. When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND
that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
investments?

And if I was a legal operator in the same market as an illegal
competitor, I'd for sure use that against them with respect to winning
roof and tower rights, fighting their interference in court, and
informing their customers of the risks. And that'd all be an entirely
fair and ethical approach.

Rant off. Sigh. G'night. Be safe this New Years. ...and BE LEGAL!


Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

Then you must not be aware that Lonnie is now also selling the complete 
package.
The newest product is Star V3, Atheros cm9 and a gateworks customized 
board to Lonnies specs.

It's called the WAR board, or Wireless Advanced Router. They come in 2 
flavors, a 4 port 533MHz proc or a 2 port 266MHz proc, both with 2 
ethernets. Can do 5, 10, 20,,40MHz channel widths.

I have  better than 200 maybe 250 by now WAR boards in place with Pac 
Wireless Rootennas both 5 gig and 2 gig.

Recently I built a new pop using a water tank. My transfer rate from the

tank to my house gave me just under 30megs ftp across that link using a 
pair of 266's.

Most of the links I put in are 5 gig and I use the 2nd port for a 2 gig 
wifi ap for the immediate area.

I can honestly say that I can not remember having to reboot any of my 
war boards and 20 megs is not uncommon across my wireless man.








This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-29 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Patrick,

Pardon my ignorance...I'm not an RF guy...but what do you mean by the
problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands?

Jeff

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times and
spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the myths.
FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has lots of
challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands. 

I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have UL
WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head and
really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially INVENTED this
stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been selling 802.16 PMP in
scale since summer 2004. We today have well over 50% of all WiMAX base
stations and clients sold into the market. You have to understand that if UL
WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have introduced it long ago when others were
trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready.
Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?)

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon.
But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than 
sensitivity.  At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the
20mbps 
Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances.

OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 
10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly
higher 
C/Is).  OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can
operate 
with less signal than 20mbps Canopy.  And as you already expressed, with

17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster.

But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can
tolerate 
partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold.

Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of
time 
framed systems.  I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email

threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong.  I'm a great
fan 
of time framed systems myself.

It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system
would have performed?

I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi
  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Marlon,

  You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge
those
  definitions.
  However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to
my
  comments.
  I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the
reader
  would apply their knowledge of the definitions, to infer the relevance
of
  comments made.

  To be more clear

  OFDM is plagued by a larger SNR to operate adequately, compared to
DSSS.
  DSSS has been able to operate with minimum SNRs anywhere from 3db
(canopy)
  to 8db (trango).
  Actually that comment is not exactly true, Canopy's C/I is 3db (not 
minimum
  SNR required).
  OFDM gear typically wants to see a minimum of 17db SNR, and performs
  optimally with  25db SNR.
  I'm not aware that Wifi gear has worse C/I specs than non-Wifi gear,
based
  on it being Wifi (csma/ca).
  Wifi or TDD has nothing to do with Noise, Wifi  TDD has to do with
timing
  of transmissions.

  My point was that if you can't get over the noise, when using
modulations
  less able to get over the noise, you can help solve the problem by
  transmitting when the noise is not occuring.
  Contant time based transmission has little benefit, if it occurs
during a
  noisy time where that noise will kill the signal and results in packet

loss.
  I'd rather have increased latency, and try again, to prevent packet
loss.

   I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS
to be
   able to survive the noise, with better SNRs

   Meant... DSSS gets over noise 

Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?

2006-12-29 Thread Carl A jeptha

lets look at the VHF system, which radio would you buy??

Or is it which proprietary system would you deploy? Or is it where can I 
lease/rent/buy crystals to put in my radio?


Black and white, I am the customer beholden unto to my supplier, long 
may they live.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Tom DeReggi wrote:

Carl,

You bring up a point that I do not disagree, other than it is jsut the 
reality of our industry.
There is no adequate standard today. Basic WiFi on its own just has to 
many flaws in design to be adequate High ARPU Business class scale.
What you talk about is the Promise of WiMax. I don't fight that 
dream, it just doesn't exist yet in the US.


I'd rather pick a proprietary manufacturer, than not have a solution 
at all, or one that doesn't work adequately.


The winners in this business are who guesses best at which proprietary 
vendor will continue to be the best choice.

Its hard to predict, everyday what was right could change.

I know what you want, and ultimately its wha tI want, but its a dream, 
not reality.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Carl A jeptha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the 
BUSINESS?



So am I correct in assuming that being held ransom by a manufacturer 
is the right business model.

Or
If I buy Alvarion now and they go belly-up, I can just switch to 
Trango and when they go Belly-up I can go to Motorola and so on and 
so on.


Or am I missing the POINT TOTALLY. I should not use an 
internationally recognized standard, I should use Proprietary equipment.

RANT
I spent two years of my life with WAVERIDER, where the [EMAIL PROTECTED]^ing 
he!! are they now

I spent two years of my life with CIRRONET, where are they now
/RANT
Tell me again it is a sound business model to be held Hostage by one 
manufacturer
If the international standard is wrong, why can't we get the 
manufacturers to come up with a common standard???
Or is it that when held hostage they don't have to supply proper 
customer service
Or is it their business plan to capture the market and after gaining 
the monopoly, then what?


ALL I WANT IS TO BE ABLE TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. IF I HAVE TWENTY 
DIFFERENT RADIOS ON MY NETWORK AND THEY ALL TALK TOGETHER, TIME 
WILL TELL ME WHICH ONE IS THE BETTER ONE.


It does not take an engineer to figure out that one, and once I have 
been bitten by a bad product it will me a long time to go back to it.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Tom DeReggi wrote:

Marty,

And I probably should be selling, not debating :-(

But, I can't agree more with your post.

Except


When was the
last time a Trango EMPLOYEE asked for your feedback?


Trango is one of the best manufacturers out there, from the 
perspective of asking their customers, what they want and need, and 
responding with change.
They've even reimbursed WISPs for travel expenses to come offer 
their advice on how they can improve their product.
Trango shines in that area, and their success at keeping in touch 
with their buyers, is a large part of their success to date, and I 
have nothing but respect for Trango's efforts in that area.

Credit should be given where credit is due.

Trango's current limitation, is they don't have a greater than 
10mbps PtMP product.  But it wasn't really ever needed until 
recently, nor ever really asked for, because it wasn't needed.  
Alvarion was the one that took 5 years to reduce their price, 
something we ALL always asked for from day one. Don't get me wrong, 
I wish Trango would replace the dish with a good solid panel, I 
haven't won that battle yet.


Today, for me, Alvarion has the upper hand. They have the right 
product, at the right price, at the right time, which was a very 
bold and smart move strategically to make. Mutually for the WISP's 
benefit and Alvarions.  Gain the market share, while they have the 
unique product to accomplish it.  But, its not clear that Alvarion 
will have that same advantage 6 months from now, when Trango 
launches their next generation product, which I can tell you is an 
exciting product.  And Trango is listening, as that product will 
have high quality Dual Polarity Panel antennas. This is a leap frog 
industry. Trango's bigger mistake is that Trango gave up backwards 
compatibility, in their vision for new products. That means they 
can't leverage their customer's existing huge investment in Trango 
installed base to their advantage, to encourage WISPs to wait for 
their new products from Trango. So Trango will have to compete head 
to head on feature set alone, like a start 

Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?

2006-12-29 Thread Carl A jeptha

When we made those decisions in 1999 we did not find Alvarion or Motorola.


You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Patrick Leary wrote:

Respectfully Carl and while I generally agree on use of standards (in a
mature market), when the market is developing and one still wants in,
then it is up to the operator to pick a horse that is stable. The
stability of your initial choice was there for any to see and study as a
public company. On your second choice, you decided to go with a new
entrant to the market whose primary business was something else. So you
made your own risk calculations.

Had you opted for more stability (such as a Motorola or Alvarion), you'd
not have been confronted with that problem. I agree that this is an
important consideration and I would assert that too few WISPs place any
value on that. I can tell you that the health and/or the commitment of a
supplier is a TOP consideration of large operators. ...Not going that
route would be unthinkable.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carl A jeptha
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the
BUSINESS?

So am I correct in assuming that being held ransom by a manufacturer is 
the right business model.

Or
If I buy Alvarion now and they go belly-up, I can just switch to Trango 
and when they go Belly-up I can go to Motorola and so on and so on.


Or am I missing the POINT TOTALLY. I should not use an internationally 
recognized standard, I should use Proprietary equipment.

RANT
I spent two years of my life with WAVERIDER, where the [EMAIL PROTECTED]^ing he!! 
are they now

I spent two years of my life with CIRRONET, where are they now
/RANT
Tell me again it is a sound business model to be held Hostage by one 
manufacturer
If the international standard is wrong, why can't we get the 
manufacturers to come up with a common standard???
Or is it that when held hostage they don't have to supply proper 
customer service

Or is it their business plan to capture the market and after gaining the

monopoly, then what?

ALL I WANT IS TO BE ABLE TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. IF I HAVE TWENTY 
DIFFERENT RADIOS ON MY NETWORK AND THEY ALL TALK TOGETHER, TIME WILL 
TELL ME WHICH ONE IS THE BETTER ONE.


It does not take an engineer to figure out that one, and once I have 
been bitten by a bad product it will me a long time to go back to it.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Tom DeReggi wrote:
  

Marty,

And I probably should be selling, not debating :-(

But, I can't agree more with your post.

Except



When was the
last time a Trango EMPLOYEE asked for your feedback?
  
Trango is one of the best manufacturers out there, from the 
perspective of asking their customers, what they want and need, and 
responding with change.
They've even reimbursed WISPs for travel expenses to come offer their 
advice on how they can improve their product.

Trango shines in that area, and their success at keeping in touch with



  
their buyers, is a large part of their success to date, and I have 
nothing but respect for Trango's efforts in that area.

Credit should be given where credit is due.

Trango's current limitation, is they don't have a greater than 10mbps 
PtMP product.  But it wasn't really ever needed until recently, nor 
ever really asked for, because it wasn't needed.  Alvarion was the one



  

that took 5 years to reduce their price, something we ALL always asked



  
for from day one. Don't get me wrong, I wish Trango would replace the 
dish with a good solid panel, I haven't won that battle yet.


Today, for me, Alvarion has the upper hand. They have the right 
product, at the right price, at the right time, which was a very bold 
and smart move strategically to make. Mutually for the WISP's benefit 
and Alvarions.  Gain the market share, while they have the unique 
product to accomplish it.  But, its not clear that Alvarion will have 
that same advantage 6 months from now, when Trango launches their next



  
generation product, which I can tell you is an exciting product.  And 
Trango is listening, as that product will have high quality Dual 
Polarity Panel antennas. This is a leap frog industry. Trango's bigger



  
mistake is that Trango gave up backwards compatibility, in their 
vision for new products.  That means they can't leverage their 
customer's existing huge investment in Trango installed base to their 
advantage, to encourage WISPs to wait for their new products from 
Trango. So Trango will have to compete head to head on 

[WISPA] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Liotta

http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mac Dearman
Ryan,

  YES  YES!

I personally run about 30 MikroTik APs (Proxim, Trango and a few Tranzeo's)
and have been using Tranzeo CPE's exclusively for the last few years. It
works great. 

 I also know that Matt Larsen uses Tranzeo CPE exclusively (for years) and
he is a 100% dyed in the wool StarOS man with StarOS AP's and Tranzeo CPE
in at least 3 different States out west.

Pick your flavor and deploy with confidence!! :-)


Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Rayville, La.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief)
www.mac-tel.us  (VoIP sales)
318.728.8600
318.728.9600
318.303.4182 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:05 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

Can anyone just answer the questions I had without fighting amongst  
yourselves? (I thought Xmas with the inlaws was bad!)

Lonnie... If I were to buy a StarOS type product, would it be  
compatable with the CPQ series radios from Tranzeo?

What sort of client load should I be able to support on a Star-OS  
based AP?



ryan


On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

 Patrick,

 This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
 always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
 lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
 have outlived several LARGER companies.

 Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
 cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
 seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?


 Lonnie


 On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
 no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
 quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
 investment from an equity standpoint.


 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Butch Evans
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

 On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
 (FCC-certified) brands?

 Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was
 asked.

 --
 Butch Evans
 Network Engineering and Security Consulting
 573-276-2879
 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/



 * 
 ***
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(190).
 * 
 ***
 







 * 
 ***
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(43).
 * 
 ***
 








 * 
 ***
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals   
 computer viruses.
 * 
 ***



 --
 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/

-- 
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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Rick Smith
Patrick, 

what exactly is this illegal hardware you're referring to ?

Can't be tranzeo


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

Lonnie,

Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded
into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal
hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware
suppliers?

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

Patrick,

This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have always
been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while
me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived
several LARGER companies.

Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I cannot jump
in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self
serving.  What is your excuse?


Lonnie


On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality 
 controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit 
 anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your 
 investment from an equity standpoint.


 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of Butch Evans
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

 On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
 (FCC-certified) brands?

 Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked.

 --
 Butch Evans
 Network Engineering and Security Consulting
 573-276-2879
 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/





 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
 computer viruses(190).


 









 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
 computer viruses(43).


 











 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses.






 --
 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/





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer viruses.


RE: [WISPA] STar-OS and 900 mhz

2006-12-29 Thread Rick Smith
Interesting thing is Mikrotik is seeing the same problem on 3.0beta4.

They say it'll be corrected when beta 5 is released.  No date on t
that yet

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] STar-OS and 900 mhz


Tom,  I haven't got time at the moment, but I have some experience with this
combination...

I'll write more later... but I believe there's a driver or radio problem
that causes this.

Mark


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries
to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] PAcket loss with CSMA/CA


 I just installed a PTP 900Mhz Atheros SR9 StarOSV3 link that had 5% packet
 loss that I could not get rid of.
 (Set 12mbps modulation, and averaged greater than 20db SNR.)

 In theory, CSMA/CA should not get PAcket loss, like a TDD system might, as
 the CSMA waits for acknowledment and re-transmits if it does not get it,
 Wifi's built-in native ARQ.

 I was not surprices to see Latency skyrocket, or retransmisson to sky
 rocket, but I was surprised to see uncorrectable 5% packetloss.
 Any ideas on why it occured.  Meaning why 802.11 MAC didn't self correct
the
 packet loss with its native re-transmission?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:47 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived -
 regardinginterference - Part 1


 I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has
 gone...wow

 So, my 2 cents...

 One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of
a
 system's interference robustness.  However, before we can get into further
 detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS,
etc --
 it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad
 and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone.  Heck, all radios
in
 the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance
 capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is
knowing
 what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle.  Read on...I'll
 talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write
Part
 2 =)



 WHAT IS INTERERENCE?

 In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where
 unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands -
 i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level
in
 the intended transmission.

 Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from
 your own network(s) or from an outside source.  If the interfering RF
 signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the
same
 tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference.  If the
 opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not
 under your control, it is termed outside interference.  Thus, the
 definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on
 technology, but ownership.

 In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs)
 self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more
or
 less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have
signals
 transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product
 design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where
 they do not impact network performance.

 Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band
 operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues.  The
 techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and
 tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly
 to license-exempt systems.

 THE LICENSE-EXEMPT CHALLENGE OF INTERFERENCE

 In the license-exempt bands, not only must self-interference be accounted
 for, but, given the nature of the regulations governing these bands,
 external interference must be designed for as well.  This can be extremely
 challenging, as there is no way of knowing in advance where these outside
 signals may be or will be sourced from, or even how strong the interfering
 transmissions will be relative to the desired transmission.  This aspect
of
 the license-exempt bands represents the possible downside of
 license-exempt network operation.

 Yet as potentially damaging and unpredictable as external interference can
 be in license-exempt networks, a properly designed and implemented

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,

I do not challenge Alvarion's top role in Licensed WiMax.
I recognize it, as does most of the world.

But the truth is... Some companies have publically announced that they plan 
to deliver a 5.8Ghz unlicensed product (as their primary focus), and others 
have announced that they are NOT planning to.  Problems can be worked out, 
if they are worked on. If someone does not have a plan or desire to launch 
an unlicensed WiMax product, it is not likely that they will be working to 
fix unlicensed Wimax products.  This world is full of smart people, and 
those that put their minds to it, will likely make more progress than those 
that do not.


The plan that most manufacturers have, that plan to launch unlicensed Wimax, 
is to use WiMax chipsets, with their own proprietary MACs, so they can 
release better and working products sooner.
After all, the bigger goal is just to deliver a better radio, and maybe even 
accomplish a possible upgrade path to True Wimax Firmware, if desired.  How 
they will accomplish that, I feel is best left up to the clever radio 
designers, and I'll leave it at that for confidentiality courtesy.


My prediction that Trango will be the first to launch an unlicened WiMax 
product is based on the fact that they have the most vested interest in 
launching one.
They are currently without a next generation product, and they need its 
release. I'm not predicting it will initially be a certified compliant WiMax 
system. Trango currently has a quality MAC, and  positiones Trango as a 
likely candidate to successfully pull off a custom WiMax chipset product. 
Alvarion on the other hand has very little benefit of launching an 
unlicensed Wimax product when it already has a strong VL product line and a 
strong licensed 802.16e product line.


As far as your claim on the flawed UL Wimax standard I don't disagree. 
Every planned product in my mind is vapor, until it can be purchased, 
deployed, and tested by the operator.  This again being the big reason that 
I personally am so fond of Alvarion VL products recently re-marketed to 
WISPs, as a solution that can be deployed today, without risk or chance of 
empty promises.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times
and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the
myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has
lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL
bands.

I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have
UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head
and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially
INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been
selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over
50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You
have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have
introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is,
it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before
the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?)

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?


Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon.
But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than
sensitivity.  At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the
20mbps
Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances.

OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the
10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly
higher
C/Is).  OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can
operate
with less signal than 20mbps Canopy.  And as you already expressed, with

17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster.

But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can
tolerate
partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold.

Aside 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi

Yes, but

All I want is a better radio.

The Dream is... Wimax is interoperabilty certified to a standard.
The Reality is... Who can get me a better radio sooner.
(See previous Post)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:53 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for
UL. I did not say in detail why (at least not in this post). For sure it
is because the MAC was developed for licensed (LMDS actually) -- that's
my point. It was never conceived of for UL.
---
Also, there IS a WiMAX UL standard -- the profile has been in place for
over a year. There just is not equipment and there has been no UL
certification yet. http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view  The reason
has nothing to do with Europe (Alvarion's Mariana Goldhamer led the
harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and IEEE 802.16 several years ago).
The main vendors in the Forum (the ones that really drive things) all
know the deal with UL and they are in no rush to deliver WiMAX in it's
current form onto the U.S. market. Also, the existing UL WiMAX profile
is for 802.16d-2004. The whole of the Forum is focusing on 802.16e-2005,
in fact, the entire WiMAX ecosystem you hear about it all relative to
802.16e-2005. Migrations from .16d-2005 to .16e-2005 are not software
type changes. All that combined with the non-UL MAC = folks will be
sorry for sinking CAPEX into certain UL WiMAX. Buyer beware and know
the deal.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the
WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit.


Fact is,
it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready.


IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original
802.16 plan.  Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the
game.


Anyone that buys it before
the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.


Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like
pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ...
except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at
some future date if the hardware is WiMAX.  I dunno ... I think the
reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the
ball with HyperLAN2.  It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL
5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers
all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development  licensing.
(Maybe, maybe not)  For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16
originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement
IIRC).

Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or
prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band?  Sigh...

Rich
 - Original Message - 
 From: Patrick Leary

 To: WISPA General List
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:41 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times
 and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the
 myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has
 lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in
UL
 bands.

 I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not
have
 UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your
head
 and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially
 INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been
 selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over
 50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You
 have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have
 introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact
is,
 it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it
before
 the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

 I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?)

 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

 Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon.
 But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be 

[WISPA] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Peter R.
By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet 
access service
(i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at 
least one direction) to 100
percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region 
territory. 2 To meet this
commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services 
to t least 85
percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline 
Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to 
the remaining living
units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, 
including but not limited to
satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further 
commits that at least
30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date 
necessary to achieve the
Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income 
living units. 3


--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.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] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Rick Smith
keyword...offer...

buzzword...Wi-max...

aka fluff...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband 

By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access
service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at
least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the
ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, ATT/BellSouth
will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of such
living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the
remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating
arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed
wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30
percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date
necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural
areas or low income living units. 3

-- 


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that 
there isn't a reason not to get certified.
The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty 
standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any 
need.
Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be 
used daily.
Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new 
FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent 
antenna?
I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a 
collection.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...



Patrick,

This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
have outlived several LARGER companies.

Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?


Lonnie


On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
investment from an equity standpoint.


Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
(FCC-certified) brands?

Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was
asked.

--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
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/





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(190).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(43).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
computer viruses.





--
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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Frank Muto
And there is no enforceable action that may or not take place if these 
voluntary commitments are not met, i.e., penalties and or fines after the 
merger is completed. Same smoke and mirrors BS from past mergers.



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us






- Original Message - 
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]




keyword...offer...

buzzword...Wi-max...

aka fluff...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband

By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access
service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in 
at

least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the
ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, 
ATT/BellSouth
will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of 
such

living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to 
the

remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating
arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed
wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30
percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date
necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to 
rural

areas or low income living units. 3

--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi
Which basically means WISPS have no choice but to protest and fight the 
merger.  ATT/BellSouth Basic declared war on all competition with that 
statement.


I was OK with it, when they had the option to leave less desirable business 
to third parties. But obligating themselves to have all consumers' business, 
creating a monopoly to wipe out all competition, is clearly backwards.  By 
admitting they feel that they will be strong enough to deliver 100% 
coverage, is proof that they themselves will recognize themselves a monopoly 
in the re-creation.


Peter,

Where did you get that Arcticle?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband


By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access 
service
(i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least 
one direction) to 100
percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region 
territory. 2 To meet this
commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services 
to t least 85
percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline 
Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to 
the remaining living
units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including 
but not limited to
satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further 
commits that at least
30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date 
necessary to achieve the
Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income 
living units. 3


--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi
I think WISPs should propose that ATT/BellSouth be allowed to merge only if 
they agree NOT to deploy wireless and NOT to rural areas :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] att condition - broadband


And there is no enforceable action that may or not take place if these 
voluntary commitments are not met, i.e., penalties and or fines after the 
merger is completed. Same smoke and mirrors BS from past mergers.



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us






- Original Message - 
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]




keyword...offer...

buzzword...Wi-max...

aka fluff...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband

By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access
service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in 
at
least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in 
the
ATTBellSouth in-region territory. 2 To meet this commitment, 
ATT/BellSouth
will offer broadband Internet access services to t least 85 percent of 
such

living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to 
the

remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating
arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed
wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further commits that at least 30
percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date
necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to 
rural

areas or low income living units. 3

--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski


--
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] att condition - broadband

2006-12-29 Thread Brian Webster
But with that bit of verbal fluff, they can already do that. They can offer
DSL, if they enable all of their switches. With very little investment they
can put DSLAMs a little farther out if need be. Of course they can offer
Satellite, always have been able to. I would be further curious to see if
they get this merger under these conditions, that they don't have to sell
any switch capacity to competitors. Verizon up here in NY has stated at
private PSC meetings that they will not upgrade any switches where they have
to offer the facilities to competitors. This is just crap language to
buffalo those who don't understand what is already out
there..It's hard to watch people make decisions who are
uninformed.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: Peter R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] att condition - broadband


By December 31, 2007, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet
access service
(i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at
least one direction) to 100
percent of the residential living units in the ATTBellSouth in-region
territory. 2 To meet this
commitment, ATT/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services
to t least 85
percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the Wireline
Buildout Area).
ATT/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to
the remaining living
units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements,
including but not limited to
satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies . ATTBellSouth further
commits that at least
30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date
necessary to achieve the
Wireline Buildout Area commitment wi11 be to rural areas or low income
living units. 3

--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread John Scrivner
I think Patrick needs to build Lonnie a box. Star OS software / Alvarion 
radio. Look out!

:-)
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


Lonnie, you are just doing what I wish I were smart enough to do --
write code people are willing to pay for. Software is always better than
hardware: you avoid FCC hassles, you have no hard shipping or packaging
costs, you need no production facilities, you don't have to negotiate
purchase of and stock components, you can live anywhere, it can be
instantly deployed, etc., etc.

I've nothing but respect for what you've done. 


For all the same reasons, I'd think you were insane if you went into
hardware in this business.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

Seemed kind close to my home is all.

All the Best in 2007.

Lonnie






This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-29 Thread Marketing
I figured you would probably use them all before the nuts would arrive...

The UM's and UML's needed to be re-tooled due to the fact that after so many
parts, tooling needs to be replaced.  We went with the stamped bases due to
the fact that the overall consistency is better on the parts and are as
strong or stronger.

Happy New Year!

Regards,
Ben Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

Thanks for the offer Ben.

But we'll have all of these units out in the field long before you can get a

box of nuts to me!

If it REALLY bothers me, I'll just run down to the local hardware store and 
buy my own nuts.  grin

It's MUCH more fun to pick on you guys once in a while though.  evil grin

Say, I have a question for you.  When and why did you move from the welded 
to the stamped base plates for the Sat. arms?  I'd guess that they are a bit

cheaper to make, but the material seems thinner.  Are they as strong?

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



- Original Message - 
From: Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 George,

 We are definitely listening.  This will be changed going forward.  If you
 need some additional flange nuts (7/16), let me know.  Same goes for you
 Marlon.

 Regards,
 Ben

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:31 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
 Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of
 Alvarion I do have to side with him on this.  I just called Ben Moore at
 PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me.
 They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things.  Now I have to
 carry FOUR tools up the ladder.

 Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm?  Those are the same size  People
 have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep
 screwing with.

 If there's a standard out there, please stick with it.  We have enough
 things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange
 default username/password combos!

 BINGO, we found this out yesterday and hope that this is a temporary 
 thing.

 Hope fully Ben is reading this.. Not a good thing to change.

 George

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

Patrick,

We sell kits of the required components, no different than many
others.  Many people have had had our components certified for FCC and
CE use since they do a volume business of assembled systems.  In order
to get FCC and CE approvals you must submit a complete system, as you
are well aware, and since we do not assemble the parts into a system
with a case we cannot, and are not required to, get approvals.

The main thing we do is software but I have determined that people
need to be led to the right hardware.  I find it cuts down on my
technical support when they use the components I have chosen after
evaluating what is available.  There should be no surprise there.

We are evaluating whether to step back out of hardware, but we have to
make sure that there will be a steady source of parts that meet my
criteria.  Gateworks appears ready and willing to sell direct to my
customers so we are thinking we might let them step into the middle as
we step out of the way.

Our mesh continues to amaze people for its simplicity and performance
and we definitely will be doing more work on mesh in 2007.  Self
healing backbones are pretty cool and are precisely what the Internet
was supposed to be in the first place.  Our overall philosophy is to
remain true to the Internet design goals and try and extend the net,
rather than having a simple bubble connecting to it.  We feel that
when customers build it our way (the Internet way) they are joining
with and extending the Internet, rather than simply becoming a user of
it.

2007 will be fun and we intend on turning some more heads our way as
new developments start to become available.

Lonnie

On 12/29/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a
good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market
segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think
your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying
within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of
guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard.

So then while I congratulate Lonnie's innovation, he needs to come clean
and go legal. Sorry Lonnie, but yes if you are doing this it does gall
me. It galls me when folks outside our borders go around the legal paths
to our market. It's cheesy. It's dishonest. It's anti-competitive. And
it's simply illegal. You've done all the work, why not go legal? If not,
do you have any right to complain if someone copies your soft work and
sells it as his own? Or do you think, Hey, that's different, he's
damaging me!

You guys may not like the rules, but they are there and the rest of us
have to abide by them and incur all the expense required to play by the
rules.

And if you are an operator reading this, do you really think staying
under the legal power limit makes you righteous? It makes you no more
righteous that a guy beside you on the tower that does a beautiful NEC
poster child of an install but does not have legal right to use the
tower.

I know many find this attitude insulting and I know as a vendor I'm
supposed to just hold my tongue so as not to piss people off, because
there will be those who might say, Because of that attitude I've never
buy one Alvarion radio! Maybe so, but I can accept that because this
stuff weakens all WISPs claims, all attempts to be regarded as
legitimate players, and it sucker punches all of us who fight on your
behalf.

For sure, in doing so you can't ever complain about the person that
sneaks into the ball game for free, right behind home plate, while you
and your family paid. Don't you ever complain that your neighbor's kid
gets a student grant because his parents hide income when yours can't
qualify because your family makes too much. Don't you ever complain
about a rancher or farmer getting over on you on water rights because no
one's looking. And don't complain about the Yahoo next door using an
illegal amp.

Illegal WISPs equivocate by saying, Hey, I'm within the power limits.
I'm not hurting anyone. Well, it's not true. You are hurting every
legitimate WISP and every legitimate vendor, and in turn you hurt the
entire industry. And some WISPs have the gall to say, why won't someone
build X? Well, maybe because so many WISPs to save themselves a buck
will buy illegal product that it discourages investment from legit
players. When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND
that a good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
investments?

And if I was a legal operator in the same market as an illegal
competitor, I'd for sure use that against them with respect to winning
roof and tower rights, fighting their interference in court, and
informing their 

Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Rich Comroe
I worked for a manufacturer that certified product with the FCC.  The legality 
issue for FCC type acceptance can be argued in certain circumstances.  Truth 
is, we didn't re-apply for FCC type acceptance every time we changed a resistor 
value or made some board change or modified the software.  It's arguable that 
the need for FCC type acceptance is only required when a change in the product 
alters the rf modulation.  When it was clear to us that it did, we'd re-apply 
for FCC type acceptance.

If someone puts an FCC type accepted radio card into box with a single board 
computer combined with some OS on the SBC, I'm not sure there's any legality 
issue as far as the FCC is concerned.  I think the question is whether there's 
anything in the SBC  external software that's changed the rf characteristics 
of the radio card that's already been FCC type accepted.  If not ... why is it 
illegal?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


  Lonnie,

  Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that 
  there isn't a reason not to get certified.
  The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty 
  standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any 
  need.
  Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be 
  used daily.
  Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new 
  FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent 
  antenna?
  I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a 
  collection.

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


   Patrick,
  
   This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
   always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
   lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
   have outlived several LARGER companies.
  
   Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
   cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
   seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?
  
  
   Lonnie
  
  
   On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
   no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
   quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
   investment from an equity standpoint.
  
  
   Patrick Leary
   AVP WISP Markets
   Alvarion, Inc.
   o: 650.314.2628
   c: 760.580.0080
   Vonage: 650.641.1243
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Butch Evans
   Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
  
   On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:
  
   Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
   (FCC-certified) brands?
  
   Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was
   asked.
  
   --
   Butch Evans
   Network Engineering and Security Consulting
   573-276-2879
   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/
  
  
  
   
   
   This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
   PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
   computer viruses(190).
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
   PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
   computer viruses(43).
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   

   This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
   PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
   computer viruses.
   

  
  
  
   --
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   

[WISPA] Fiar use policy

2006-12-29 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

This looks like it's well written and makes a ton of sense to me.

http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?pageid=fairaccessContainer=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[BD8BE0839F414B4FB7CDDCA10EFA5369]]

Anyone else implementing a program like this?

Any suggested specifics?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Ryan Spott

N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM:

Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!)
Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant 
that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list:



The CPE90 is Marvell.
The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based.
The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based.
The CPE80 was Atmel.
-Damian Wallace


I was looking for that Damian Wallace post!
Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you 
upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares.
All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. :) 
(pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a while!)


Thanks!

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Fiar use policy

2006-12-29 Thread Ryan Spott

Marlon,

This is a VERY well written policy that works well. Since it is 
automated it also P***ES off subscribers. My father-in-law uses Hughes. 
He bought an electronic copy of Adobe Photoshop. The version he 
purchased was a 3CD-ROM set. He got through 1 CD rom and POOF he was on 
dialup speeds.


This was a completely legitimate download of completely legitimate 
software and the Adobe download software was only doing something like 
50KB/sec as it self throttles.


Man o Man, that was 2 years ago and he STILL P***ES and moans about it! 
Due to this, I use a play nice policy. If I see some abnormal usage 
(and I get paged by my MRTG system) I simply cut the user off for a bit 
to break the bit-torrent session or I call the user. I tell them that 
they are on a shared system and that if they don't play nice then they 
can't play at all.


Now, I have little to no competent competition so if the end user really 
wants to get mad then I let them out of their contract.


My $.2(CAN) worth.

ryan

ps: if you ever venture over Stevens Pass. Email me, I'll buy you lunch 
while I pick your brain. :)


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote, On 12/29/2006 9:23 AM:

This looks like it's well written and makes a ton of sense to me.

http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?pageid=fairaccessContainer=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[BD8BE0839F414B4FB7CDDCA10EFA5369]] 



Anyone else implementing a program like this?

Any suggested specifics?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread John Scrivner
What about using external antennas? Doesn't that require FCC 
certification? I agree with everything you have said below with the 
exception of use of external antennas and amplifiers of course. I 
thought you needed a FCC system certification for systems made up of a 
radio and external pigtails, cables, antennas, etc. I like this 
discussion. We need to get to the heart of the legality issues of the 
equipment and systems we use. I would like to be 100% legal in all I do.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


I worked for a manufacturer that certified product with the FCC.  The legality 
issue for FCC type acceptance can be argued in certain circumstances.  Truth 
is, we didn't re-apply for FCC type acceptance every time we changed a resistor 
value or made some board change or modified the software.  It's arguable that 
the need for FCC type acceptance is only required when a change in the product 
alters the rf modulation.  When it was clear to us that it did, we'd re-apply 
for FCC type acceptance.

If someone puts an FCC type accepted radio card into box with a single board 
computer combined with some OS on the SBC, I'm not sure there's any legality issue 
as far as the FCC is concerned.  I think the question is whether there's anything 
in the SBC  external software that's changed the rf characteristics of the 
radio card that's already been FCC type accepted.  If not ... why is it illegal?

Rich
 - Original Message - 
 From: Tom DeReggi 
 To: WISPA General List 
 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:44 AM

 Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


 Lonnie,

 Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that 
 there isn't a reason not to get certified.
 The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty 
 standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any 
 need.
 Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be 
 used daily.
 Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new 
 FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent 
 antenna?
 I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a 
 collection.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


  Patrick,
 
  This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
  always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
  lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
  have outlived several LARGER companies.
 
  Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
  cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
  seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?
 
 
  Lonnie
 
 
  On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
  no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
  quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
  investment from an equity standpoint.
 
 
  Patrick Leary
  AVP WISP Markets
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Butch Evans
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
 
  On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
  (FCC-certified) brands?
 
  Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was
  asked.
 
  --
  Butch Evans
  Network Engineering and Security Consulting
  573-276-2879
  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/
 
 
 
  
  
  This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
  PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
  computer viruses(190).
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
  PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
  computer viruses(43).
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys.  (Why did I know that 
THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the 
kettle))


Here's how it works.  If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 
4 watts.  36dB.  That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands.  I forget what 
the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the 
ap.


The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit.

As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as 
it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type.  If you are using an ap radio 
(doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever 
anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of 
similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less.  Want to run a 15 dB 
hpol omni?  Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on 
this one but I don't think so).  Certainly if you want to put a sector on, 
so sorry, no can do.  Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector.


Here's the really fun part.  Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if 
you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system.  AND the 
devices have to be keyed to each other.  Meaning that the ap and the amp 
have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. 
Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI.


On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM 
rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and 
match in the UNII band anyway.


900 mhz
4 watts max.  You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same 
type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with 
the radio.  If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi 
that's 20dB or less.  If they certified no yagis you can't use one.


2.4 ghz
Starts at 4 watts.  30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain.  For ever 
dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB.  At 24 
dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid.  This gives you a 
total of 60 watts of output.  Same rules apply though.  If the radio isn't 
certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't 
do this.  Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything 
with the LARGEST antenna of all common types!  If they aren't certified 
with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the 
radios.


5.8 ghz
Starts with 4 watts.  30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain.  Go as 
big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power.  Same 
other rules about certification apply.


Is my network perfect?  Nope.  Is it all within eirp limits?  You bet. 
Well, I've got one sector that used to be an omni and I need to pull our the 
amp but I'll save that project for better weather.  And it's only hurting me 
(does create a LOT of interference on one of my other systems in town).  Do 
I go around bragging about, or complaining about compliance issues?  Nope.


That said, I'm working very hard to correct any compliance issues we have. 
It'll take another year or two, but I'll have everything certified.  Things 
are growing too fast and getting too good to think that we can stay under 
the radar.  Eventually there will have to be a crack down.  Or another 
change in the rules.  I'm not sure which will happen, I prefer at least an 
eirp crackdown.  It's hard enough competing in this industry without a bunch 
of people that don't understand that more is not better most of the time 
screwing up the airways.  (BTW, that's the bad thing about rec. thresholds. 
They tend to raise the overall noise floor which, in the end, is the same as 
running more amps out there.)


If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to you, 
go hire a new consultant.  The one you have either doesn't know the rules or 
he's only in it to take your money.  And if he'll take your money without 
worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you?


Let the Marlon bashing begin!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


Then you must not be aware that Lonnie is now also selling the complete 
package.
The newest product is Star V3, Atheros cm9 and a gateworks customized 
board to Lonnies specs.


It's called the WAR board, or Wireless Advanced Router. They come in 2 
flavors, a 4 port 533MHz proc or a 2 port 266MHz proc, both with 2 
ethernets. Can do 5, 

RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread chris cooper
Hire Jack Unger. He was patient enough to beat all the rules into my
head eventually.

C

If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to
you, 
go hire a new consultant.  The one you have either doesn't know the
rules or 
he's only in it to take your money.  And if he'll take your money
without 
worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Rich Comroe
Well said.  You've covered issues in deploying your FCC certified radio product 
with various pre-approved antennas.

Now, when it comes to selling a box with a computer and radio in it, the 
questions are a bit different.  If it's a radio integrated onto a computer 
board, my belief it that it's got to be FCC accepted, certified, and bear the 
FCC ID, FCC certified label, and of course the This device complies with Part 
15 of FCC Rules ... blah, blah, blah.  If you're having a board manufactured 
with the 802.11a chips on it, I think you've got to get tested  certified.

On the other hand, if you're integrating an SBC with a radio card manufactured 
by another vendor who has already certified the card (it has the FCC ID, FCC 
certified logo, the Part 15 compliance) then I'm at a loss as to why this is 
not completely legal.  You're not a manufacturer ... you're an integrator.  I 
can't see why you'd need to re-test and certified a box with a radio that 
already bears the FCC certification.  If you need to re-certify, then BestBuy'd 
need to certify to sell you a PC with the LAN card installed, CompUSA'd need to 
certify, etc.

But if you integrate a certified radio, and reflash its code in a way that 
modifies its modulation behavior, then you've become a radio manufacturer ... 
and you need to actually go through a complete FCC type acceptance testing.  
However, in my opinion it's got to be modified at layer 1 (physical layer) to 
require this.  Changing the Media Access Control (layer 2) or above is just not 
grounds to require re-certification IMHO.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer, nor have ever played a lawyer on TV.  I am 
actually not qualified to comment on the topics I have just commented on!  :-)  
They are just my ignorant opinions, and I'd greatly appreciate anyone who could 
kick some sense into me should I be all wet.

Peace,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


  OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys.  (Why did I know that 
  THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the 
  kettle))

  Here's how it works.  If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 
  4 watts.  36dB.  That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands.  I forget what 
  the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the 
  ap.

  The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit.

  As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as 
  it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type.  If you are using an ap radio 
  (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever 
  anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of 
  similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less.  Want to run a 15 dB 
  hpol omni?  Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on 
  this one but I don't think so).  Certainly if you want to put a sector on, 
  so sorry, no can do.  Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector.

  Here's the really fun part.  Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if 
  you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system.  AND the 
  devices have to be keyed to each other.  Meaning that the ap and the amp 
  have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. 
  Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI.

  On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM 
  rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and 
  match in the UNII band anyway.

  900 mhz
  4 watts max.  You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same 
  type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with 
  the radio.  If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi 
  that's 20dB or less.  If they certified no yagis you can't use one.

  2.4 ghz
  Starts at 4 watts.  30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain.  For ever 
  dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB.  At 24 
  dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid.  This gives you a 
  total of 60 watts of output.  Same rules apply though.  If the radio isn't 
  certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't 
  do this.  Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything 
  with the LARGEST antenna of all common types!  If they aren't certified 
  with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the 
  radios.

  5.8 ghz
  Starts with 4 watts.  30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain.  Go as 
  big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power.  Same 
  other rules about certification apply.

  Is my network perfect?  Nope.  Is it all within eirp limits?  You bet. 
  Well, I've got one sector that used 

RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps

2006-12-29 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Tom,
Our group, when at Nortel, developed a WEB cache product.  That was during
the days when a typical business had only a 56k digital line to the
Internet.

It was very tough to do a generalized cache because very few sites had
expiration tags on their HTML components.  However, a lot more do today and
aggressive caching (just hoping that the content at the component URL
wouldn't change) isn't so necessary to get reliable caching...just cache the
page pieces until their expiration dates.

However, then, your observation was very prescient; we couldn't get any site
to understand that caching of their common components would reduce the load
on their servers.  More recently, most have gravitated toward a decent
discipline in that regard.

Actually, it's quite fun to explore pages today.  You can see those dates
with FireFox Mozilla under TOOLS/PAGEINFO/MEDIA.  When you scroll through
the subwindow of components for the page (try YAHOO.COM for example) you'll
see expirations on most that are a month or two away and what caching can
do.

If you want to get very esoteric and have a lot more fun (And, Travis,
unless you've tried this...I don't to insult you efforts but I just found
out about this amazing...simply amazing plug-in for Firefox...it should be
helpful in debugging your Web page);
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1843/
The firebug debugger (download it and, thereafter, bring up the HTML
debugging window with an F-12 key) gives you amazing insights into the page.
For example, open the debugger window and select debug tab and, when you
pass your cursor over the exposed understructure displayed in the debug
window, it will highlight on the real page, above, the part associated with
the understructure component.  It's easy to find parents and children of
things, and other stuff that would otherwise be an intractable mess.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps

Why is it politically correct for a Appliance vendor to charge for 
accelleration, and not an ISP, from a Net Neutrality perspective?
As WISPs, shouldn't we be charging Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, a price for

offering cached services (on-net) to them, and reducing their bandwidth use 
of their broadband connections and improving their user's experiences on 
your network?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps


 Hi,

 We've had one for almost 5 years now... but there isn't anything to play 
 with. They ship you three 1u servers and a Cisco switch. You plug 
 everything in and turn it on. They do all the admin, config, setup, etc. 
 and don't allow you access whatsoever.

 But it does work great. Microsoft updates come VERY fast (over 10Mbps 
 speeds) and many other sites are just as fast. However, I have no idea who

 to contact, as we were approached by them.

 Travis
 Microserv

 David E. Smith wrote:
 George Rogato wrote:

 You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have 
 x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your 
 network. All free.

 Any idea on how many subs you need before this becomes an option? I've 
 heard that Akamai will do this, and I love having new toys in my NOC to 
 play with, but I've never been able to find out just how you go about 
 getting one.

 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/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Liotta
Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day 
today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment.


-Matt

Matt Liotta wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] speaking of CPE

2006-12-29 Thread W.D.McKinney
I am wondering if anyone has these deployed:
http://www.airlink101.com/products/ar504.html

We don't prefer Linksys at all.

-Dee


Alaska Wireless Systems
1(907)240-2183 Cell
1(907)349-2226 Fax
1(907)349-4308 Office
www.akwireless.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] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi
Interesting comment Within 1 year return all own 2.5Ghz licenses or 
leases to a third party entity.
In otherwords they can sell it to the highest bidder, apposed to donate it 
to public use.


Also promising $10/month DSL.  Ouch.
Its not easy to enforce mandatory coverage, but it is pretty easy to enforce 
the sale price.


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, December 29, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing


Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day 
today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment.


-Matt

Matt Liotta wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf


--
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] Fiar use policy

2006-12-29 Thread Mike Ireton



 My $0.0002(US) worth - we need to begin educating our customers and 
implementing fair access policies to enforce them and then we need to 
content label our services so that our customers understand what they 
are getting with each type of service. Peer to Peer on a pc loaded with 
stolen music running on autopilot and unlimited data transfer for 
$39.95/mo, is not a sustainable business model.  Neither is singling out 
suspected abusers and calling them or cutting off their service when 
some unwritten and arbitrary limit or useage pattern is noticed.


The problem is that implementing these systems, is time consuming and 
complicated. It is also not a default feature of most networks, to have 
accounting per individual user. Nor is it a default design decision to 
have an effective single point of rate limiting control that applies to 
individual users. How many of you have individually rate limited 2.4ghz 
subs at their cpe, for example? Not many I bet. How many of you have 
subs directly plugged into a switch port? Probbly lots. Unfortunately, 
to implement a realistic fap you need to have both elements I mentioned 
- per user accounting, and per user traffic control - and you don't have 
this unless you've built your network to provide it, and going back to 
implement these things is disruptive and costly. Some may settle for 
traffic control at the noc where their bridged subscriber traffic is 
rate limited and throttled by a bandwidth arbitrator, but still it 
doesn't stop high rate traffic (port scanning viruses, anyone?) from 
getting into the network in the first place and doesn't provide nearly 
as effective limits as having it at the cpe side.


Mike-






ryan Spott wrote:


Man o Man, that was 2 years ago and he STILL P***ES and moans about it! 
Due to this, I use a play nice policy. If I see some abnormal usage 
(and I get paged by my MRTG system) I simply cut the user off for a bit 
to break the bit-torrent session or I call the user. I tell them that 
they are on a shared system and that if they don't play nice then they 
can't play at all.


Now, I have little to no competent competition so if the end user really 
wants to get mad then I let them out of their contract.


My $.2(CAN) worth.





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Training Contractors

2006-12-29 Thread Tom DeReggi
I am going to attempt to hire some new CPE installers, as contractors, paid 
by the job (peice work).  (I see market rate around $100-$150 per 
job -residential).
Finding guys that ALREADY know how to do it correctly, is not likely.  This 
brings me to Training.


How are you training the installers?  Are you making them do a mandatory 
time period shadowing/apprenticing with one of your existing installers? If 
so, does their pay change for that period?
Are you bringing them in-house for a significant duration Trainging Class? 
For example, a 1 week class room training?  What minimum requirements do you 
expect them to have to be worthy to be trained?  I hear that many are 
successfull hiring X-Satelite TV installers, but they are not likely to have 
extensive TCPIP experience.


Its not easy finding a guy thats willing to climb a ladder daily and also 
had his free time being spent as a computer geek.  They are two different 
breed people (The worken man and the intellectual). Do you train the geek to 
climb a ladder, or train the ladder climber to be a geek?  I find that 
applicants that have physical labor backgrounds work faster, and enjoy their 
job as being a wireless installer, as adds many new challenges and is easier 
work.  But the training can be tough starting at ground zero, how to 
configure the LAPTOP with an IP address.  When I employed, and paid by the 
hour or salary, it was pretty easy to figure out who to hire.  But 
contracting, a whole new set of issues arise.


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] Training Contractors

2006-12-29 Thread chris cooper
Find some satellite TV contractors that want to know more. Ive found
them to be pretty skilled and slick at doing quality installs.
chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Training Contractors

I am going to attempt to hire some new CPE installers, as contractors,
paid 
by the job (peice work).  (I see market rate around $100-$150 per 
job -residential).
Finding guys that ALREADY know how to do it correctly, is not likely.
This 
brings me to Training.

How are you training the installers?  Are you making them do a mandatory

time period shadowing/apprenticing with one of your existing installers?
If 
so, does their pay change for that period?
Are you bringing them in-house for a significant duration Trainging
Class? 
For example, a 1 week class room training?  What minimum requirements do
you 
expect them to have to be worthy to be trained?  I hear that many are 
successfull hiring X-Satelite TV installers, but they are not likely to
have 
extensive TCPIP experience.

Its not easy finding a guy thats willing to climb a ladder daily and
also 
had his free time being spent as a computer geek.  They are two
different 
breed people (The worken man and the intellectual). Do you train the
geek to 
climb a ladder, or train the ladder climber to be a geek?  I find that 
applicants that have physical labor backgrounds work faster, and enjoy
their 
job as being a wireless installer, as adds many new challenges and is
easier 
work.  But the training can be tough starting at ground zero, how to 
configure the LAPTOP with an IP address.  When I employed, and paid by
the 
hour or salary, it was pretty easy to figure out who to hire.  But 
contracting, a whole new set of issues arise.

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/


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/607 - Release Date:
12/28/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment...


http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html


jack



Matt Liotta wrote:


http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread W.D.McKinney
Hi Jack,

We never hooked up to discuss things? I see you are alive and well though.

-Dee


Alaska Wireless Systems
1(907)240-2183 Cell
1(907)349-2226 Fax
1(907)349-4308 Office
www.akwireless.net


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:23:47 -0900
Subject:
Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing


 Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment...
 
 
 http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html
 
 
 jack
 
 
 
 Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
 
 -- 
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
 
 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

Hi Ryan,

My favorite AP setup for 2.4 is StarOS/Orinoco card/YDI amplifier/YDI 
180deg sector antenna - however some of these parts are getting harder 
to find and/or don't work for a lot of situations.  So here is the most 
common one that I am deploying as of late:


StarOS/prism2511/tranzeo h-pol sector

A WRAP with a 2511 will serve about 50 or 60 customers in 2.4.

A loaded up PC with four Orinoco cards and four sectors will serve about 
250-260 customers.  Some have said that you can do more, but that is the 
most I've been able to do at one site. 

If you don't need radius authentication, or want to use hotspot-style 
authentication, I'm sure that a WRAP board with one of the new atheros 
chipset b/g cards would probably be the most compatible with a CPQ.


FWIW, I have 1000+ subs on my staros access points, and the breakdown is 
probably 50% 200-15, 30% 80-15 and 20% CPQ radios.   The CPQs are the 
best of them all for performance, reliability and ease of installation.


Hope that helps.  I'll take a shot at the other issues surfacing in this 
thread later.  :^)


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Ryan Spott wrote:

N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM:

Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!)
Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant 
that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list:



The CPE90 is Marvell.
The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based.
The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based.
The CPE80 was Atmel.
-Damian Wallace


I was looking for that Damian Wallace post!
Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you 
upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares.
All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. 
:) (pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a 
while!)


Thanks!

ryan


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Mike Ireton

Sounds like I'd want to stay away from YOU for the same reason...




Brian Webster wrote:

 Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just

because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] capstan

2006-12-29 Thread chris cooper
Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan.  Anybody have any
pointers to a good one?

 

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] capstan

2006-12-29 Thread Rick Harnish
Chris,

I bought a 120v model this summer.  We love it.  

http://www.myte.com/products_utility.html

http://www.myte.com/distributors.asp?State=oh


Happy New Years!

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of chris cooper
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:36 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] capstan

Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan.  Anybody have any
pointers to a good one?

 

Thanks

Chris

-- 
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] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

More comments...


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu

http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3

http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579


jack



Jack Unger wrote:

Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment...


http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html


jack



Matt Liotta wrote:


http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread JohnnyO
Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning
on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in
Federal Prison as we speak ?

Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost is
only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or
stupid filtering like Wild Blue does

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM
To: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for
802.11b/g

I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency
communications
vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible,
scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part
of a
ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want
to
have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for
an
open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We
respond
with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We
already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I
would
like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement
VOIP
at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long
time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but
the
feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim
just
because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them.
If
any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be
great. Have a nice day.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date:
12/29/2006 8:22 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mark McElvy
In general what is considered a better combination, lower powered radio
w/ higher gain antenna or higher powered radio w/ lower gain antenna?

Mark

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys.  (Why did I know
that 
THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the 
kettle))

Here's how it works.  If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX
output of 
4 watts.  36dB.  That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands.  I forget
what 
the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at
the 
ap.

The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit.

As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long
as 
it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type.  If you are using an ap
radio 
(doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever 
anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni
of 
similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less.  Want to run a 15
dB 
hpol omni?  Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong
on 
this one but I don't think so).  Certainly if you want to put a sector
on, 
so sorry, no can do.  Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector.

Here's the really fun part.  Under the NEW rules (from a year or two
ago) if 
you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system.  AND
the 
devices have to be keyed to each other.  Meaning that the ap and the amp

have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other.

Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI.

On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM 
rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix
and 
match in the UNII band anyway.

900 mhz
4 watts max.  You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the
same 
type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified
with 
the radio.  If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi 
that's 20dB or less.  If they certified no yagis you can't use one.

2.4 ghz
Starts at 4 watts.  30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain.  For
ever 
dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB.
At 24 
dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid.  This gives you a

total of 60 watts of output.  Same rules apply though.  If the radio
isn't 
certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you
can't 
do this.  Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying
everything 
with the LARGEST antenna of all common types!  If they aren't
certified 
with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use
the 
radios.

5.8 ghz
Starts with 4 watts.  30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain.  Go
as 
big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power.
Same 
other rules about certification apply.

Is my network perfect?  Nope.  Is it all within eirp limits?  You bet. 
Well, I've got one sector that used to be an omni and I need to pull our
the 
amp but I'll save that project for better weather.  And it's only
hurting me 
(does create a LOT of interference on one of my other systems in town).
Do 
I go around bragging about, or complaining about compliance issues?
Nope.

That said, I'm working very hard to correct any compliance issues we
have. 
It'll take another year or two, but I'll have everything certified.
Things 
are growing too fast and getting too good to think that we can stay
under 
the radar.  Eventually there will have to be a crack down.  Or another 
change in the rules.  I'm not sure which will happen, I prefer at least
an 
eirp crackdown.  It's hard enough competing in this industry without a
bunch 
of people that don't understand that more is not better most of the time

screwing up the airways.  (BTW, that's the bad thing about rec.
thresholds. 
They tend to raise the overall noise floor which, in the end, is the
same as 
running more amps out there.)

If you hire a consultant that doesn't at least explain all of this to
you, 
go hire a new consultant.  The one you have either doesn't know the
rules or 
he's only in it to take your money.  And if he'll take your money
without 
worrying about your long term legality, what else will he do to you?

Let the Marlon bashing begin!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 

Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing - Done Deal

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

Looks like it's a done deal.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_bi_ge/att_bellsouth


Should be interesting to see:

1. If ATT lives up to the terms of the deal.

2. If anybody watches to see if ATT lives up to the terms of the deal.

3. If there's any enforcement action when somebody (assuming somebody 
does watch) sees that ATT is not living up to the terms of the deal.


4. Who gets the 2.5 GHz spectrum.

5. What the competitive telecommunications/Internet landscape looks like 
3 years from now.



jack



Jack Unger wrote:


More comments...


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu

http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3

http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top 



http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579


jack



Jack Unger wrote:


Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment...


http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html


jack



Matt Liotta wrote:


http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread JohnnyO
What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an
open access point. 

Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front
door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife,
would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and
used her for a bit ?

Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you
have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house,
does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. 

Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that
makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb
Cajun boys.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g


Holy brainfade, JohnnyO.

Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head.

What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams 
have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) 
the sinking of the Titanic.

jack


JohnnyO wrote:

 Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning
 on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs
in
 Federal Prison as we speak ?
 
 Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost
is
 only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or
 stupid filtering like Wild Blue does
 
 JohnnyO
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of Brian Webster
 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM
 To: WISPA List
 Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for
 802.11b/g
 
 I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency
 communications
 vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible,
 scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part
 of a
 ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I
want
 to
 have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around
for
 an
 open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We
 respond
 with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We
 already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I
 would
 like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can
implement
 VOIP
 at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a
long
 time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration
but
 the
 feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim
 just
 because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with
them.
 If
 any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would
be
 great. Have a nice day.
 
 
 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com
 

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date:
12/29/2006 8:22 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] latest ATT filing

2006-12-29 Thread Rick Smith
why?  You're the only one against it

*wink* *wink* *nod* *nod*

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing

Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day
today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment.

-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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger


JohnnyO wrote:


What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an
open access point. 


I think that you will find that using an open access point to allow a 
first-responder (police, fire, etc.) to communicate with the rest of the 
world would not be considered a crime.




Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front
door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife,
would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and
used her for a bit ?


Well, you better be wearing your strongest jock cup or else be prepared 
to suffer serious consquences when her toe or knee contacts your private 
parts. Here's my minimum recommendation:


http://www.amazon.com/SG-Profile-Abdominal-Protective-Jock/dp/B0009ZBFPK




Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you
have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house,
does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. 


Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that
makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb
Cajun boys.


OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


jack



JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g


Holy brainfade, JohnnyO.

Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head.

What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams 
have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) 
the sinking of the Titanic.


jack


JohnnyO wrote:



Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning
on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs


in


Federal Prison as we speak ?

Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost


is


only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or
stupid filtering like Wild Blue does

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On


Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM
To: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for
802.11b/g

I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency
communications
vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible,
scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part
of a
ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I


want


to
have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around


for


an
open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We
respond
with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We
already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I
would
like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can


implement


VOIP
at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a


long


time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration


but


the
feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim
just
because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with


them.


If
any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would


be


great. Have a nice day.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com






--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:
OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use 
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet 
connection.


-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] capstan

2006-12-29 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

I never heard of them.  Nice.  What would one cost?

Brian

Rick Harnish wrote:

Chris,

I bought a 120v model this summer.  We love it.  


http://www.myte.com/products_utility.html

http://www.myte.com/distributors.asp?State=oh


Happy New Years!

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of chris cooper
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:36 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] capstan

Im looking for a reese hitch mount 12v capstan.  Anybody have any
pointers to a good one?

 


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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Carl A jeptha
This where wisps come in, they should be part of the emergency response 
plan, not a half-assed after thought.
I have been trying to make my community understand that a well built 
rural wireless solution should be part of every County's emergency plan..
in our ham operator's case, a quick call or knowledge of encryption used 
should get them on the network and to the necessary info and comms req.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Matt Liotta wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:
OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use 
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort 
internet connection.


-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] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread George Rogato

Not the wife story again..

JohnnyO wrote:

What's illegal about it ? How about scanning and connecting and using an
open access point. 


Jack - let me ask you a very simple question. If you left your front
door open, and I just happened to be walking by and noticed your wife,
would it be ok if I came in and umm connected so to speak with her and
used her for a bit ?

Just because an access point is open and non-secure, does not mean you
have permission. Just like if you left your door open to your house,
does not mean I have permission to come in and use your wife. 


Sorry for the analogy, but it's the only one I can come up with that
makes sense to me... You need to remember, Im just one of those dumb
Cajun boys.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g


Holy brainfade, JohnnyO.

Your comments about highly illegal just went STRAIGHT over my head.

What's illegal about Brian's emergency communications operation? Hams 
have been providing emergency communications services since (literally) 
the sinking of the Titanic.


jack


JohnnyO wrote:


Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning
on doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs

in

Federal Prison as we speak ?

Why don't ya'll get a VSAT system that works well for VOIP ? The cost

is

only about $60/mo more and you have no restrictions on bandwidth or
stupid filtering like Wild Blue does

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On

Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:56 PM
To: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for
802.11b/g

I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency
communications
vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible,
scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part
of a
ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I

want

to
have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around

for

an
open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We
respond
with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We
already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I
would
like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can

implement

VOIP
at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a

long

time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration

but

the
feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim
just
because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with

them.

If
any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would

be

great. Have a nice day.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] speaking of CPE

2006-12-29 Thread Carl A jeptha
Use the Linksys wrt 54g as an Router/CPE, also reflash with dd-wrt 
firmware including the models with vxworks.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



W.D.McKinney wrote:

I am wondering if anyone has these deployed:
http://www.airlink101.com/products/ar504.html

We don't prefer Linksys at all.

-Dee


Alaska Wireless Systems
1(907)240-2183 Cell
1(907)349-2226 Fax
1(907)349-4308 Office
www.akwireless.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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread George Rogato

Mark McElvy wrote:

In general what is considered a better combination, lower powered radio
w/ higher gain antenna or higher powered radio w/ lower gain antenna?

Mark


Rule of thumbs, keep the beamwidth to a minimum and use the lowest power 
needed to get the job done. These two rules will let  lots of people 
play in the same sandbox and give you the best performance.


George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger



Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use 
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort internet 
connection.


-Matt



Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert 
which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency 
Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by 
trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed 
spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a 
consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as 
one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic 
and practical.


jack


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Carl A jeptha
I have used a tr5a against an MT AP and no problems. I also use Tranzeo 
6000 for AP's and really don't see them slowing down. They also act as 
Backhaul AP's (at the same time) in PTMP mode for other microcell 
backhauls. Granted we don't have amount of clients that you have. We 
actually use the CPQ as a Backhaul CPE for some of our lighter 
microcells. My main Gateway is an MT, my Router board (with a valid 
License) is packed away waiting for me to decide something great to do 
with it. Come on Butch tell me something :-)


This why I like to follow a standard, Tranzeo knows (in no uncertain 
terms) that I will replace them, just like I did the Smartbridges, CB3's 
and Demarc's, but I still have Hawking HWBA11's out their (Damn 
customers can't see anything wring with them). This is my company and I 
run it my way not their way.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Ryan Spott wrote:

N White wrote, On 12/28/2006 11:30 PM:

Nick. Is. A. God. (and has EXCELLENT reading comprehension!)
Correction. It's late, I'm tired, and have had too much wine. I meant 
that the TRCPQ is Atheros based, not TRCPE. This is from a Tranzeo list:



The CPE90 is Marvell.
The 900, the CPQ, the 6000, the 49, and the 5a are all Atheros based.
The CPE200, the 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 were Prism based.
The CPE80 was Atmel.
-Damian Wallace


I was looking for that Damian Wallace post!
Also, if you decide to go the StarOS/Mikrotik way, make sure you 
upgrade all of your Tranzeo gear to the latest firmwares.
All of my TRCPQ are up to date.. I have a script that does it for me. 
:) (pointing and clicking on each CPE/Q gets REALLY tiresome after a 
while!)


Thanks!

ryan

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

WISPs should certainly be involved; some already are...
Also, some WISPs have ham employees who are already involved and trained 
in emergency communications...


Carl A jeptha wrote:

This where wisps come in, they should be part of the emergency response 
plan, not a half-assed after thought.
I have been trying to make my community understand that a well built 
rural wireless solution should be part of every County's emergency plan..
in our ham operator's case, a quick call or knowledge of encryption used 
should get them on the network and to the necessary info and comms req.



You have a good day now,en mag jou more's ook so wees.

Carl A Jeptha
http://www.jeptha.com
905-349-2027
skype cajeptha



Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use 
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort 
internet connection.


-Matt



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread JohnnyO


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g



Matt Liotta wrote:

 Jack Unger wrote:
 
 OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do

 what needs to be done.

 Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use

 of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
 unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort
internet 
 connection.
 
 -Matt
 

Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert 
which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency 
Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by 
trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed 
spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a 
consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as 
one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic 
and practical.

jack

*Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the
difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the
rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you
saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ?

JohnnyO

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date:
12/29/2006 8:22 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

JohnnyO,

Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this email.

Thanks,
jack


JohnnyO wrote:



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g



Matt Liotta wrote:



Jack Unger wrote:



OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do




what needs to be done.



Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use



of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort


internet 


connection.

-Matt




Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert 
which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency 
Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by 
trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed 
spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a 
consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as 
one of the many backup communications options is simply being realistic 
and practical.


jack

*Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding the
difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the
rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you
saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ?

JohnnyO



Answers:

1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP 
trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a 
WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 
1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP 
personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel 
across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my 
newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second 
largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety 
of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity 
of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 
14th year serving the broadband wireless community.


2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access 
is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you 
get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available 
open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is 
OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their opinion.


Have a Happy New Year,

jack


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread JohnnyO
*** Jack Wrote .

---2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet
access 
is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you 
get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available 
open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is 
OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their
opinion.

Jack - would you mind asking an FCC Official if this is legal or illegal
? I certainly hope that a ham operator can't break laws in order to
steal an internet connection from an UNKNOWING person or business... The
idea of them using someone's internet connection WITH permission during
an emergency is COMPLETELY different then them just loggin on at will to
an OPEN access point. It's illegal if they don't have permission.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g

JohnnyO,

Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this
email.

Thanks,
 jack


JohnnyO wrote:

 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
 802.11b/g
 
 
 
 Matt Liotta wrote:
 
 
Jack Unger wrote:


OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do
 
 
what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use
 
 
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort
 
 internet 
 
connection.

-Matt

 
 
 Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
 Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
 make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert

 which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency 
 Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by 
 trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed 
 spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a 
 consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as

 one of the many backup communications options is simply being
realistic 
 and practical.
 
 jack
 
 *Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding
the
 difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the
 rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you
 saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ?
 
 JohnnyO
 

Answers:

1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP 
trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a

WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 
1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP 
personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel 
across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my 
newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second 
largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety

of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity

of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 
14th year serving the broadband wireless community.

2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access 
is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you 
get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available 
open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is 
OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their
opinion.

Have a Happy New Year,

jack


-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date:
12/29/2006 8:22 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Liotta

Jack Unger wrote:
Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today.
While a ham could certainly make use of unlicensed spectrum, consumer 
access points, and best effort internet connections, I would think the 
vast majority use 2-way radios similar to what they used years before 
Wi-Fi even existed in the face of an emergency. The hams that I have met 
tend to incorporate new technology in sensible ways as opposed to some 
folks that believe Wi-Fi is the answer to all.
A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many 
police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and 
support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are 
communications experts.
Such experts would certainly be able to come up with a better emergency 
plan.
The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To 
consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means 
of communication but as one of the many backup communications options 
is simply being realistic and practical.
I don't see it as being realistic and practical. I can think of very few 
circumstances where a little bit of planning wouldn't provide for 
reliable communications during an emergency. In a circumstance where 
there is a proper communication plan that fails because the disaster is 
so great I'm sure the consumer's open access point on a best effort 
internet connection isn't going to work anyway.


It sure did seem like all the organizations with mobile satellite 
equipment were communicating just fine in recent disasters. A portable 
VSAT on a usage plan is quite cheap and very effective.


-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] latest ATT filing - Done Deal

2006-12-29 Thread Mike Ireton


I just can't help but think that all these mergers and speedy, favorable 
rulings and the continued sellout of competition to att is little more 
than a reward for it's blatantely illegal cooperation in the warrantless 
wiretapping of the internet by the nsa. ATT was broken up for some very 
good reasons, and I see no reason to have allowed it's reassembly other 
than the fact that it's easier to deal with one big concern than 
thousands of little tiny ones when it comes to domestic spying




Tom DeReggi wrote:
The problem isn't the final negotiation of the final hour of the merger 
terms, as effort was put to add a few extras for consumers and 
competitors, to take attention off the fact that consumers just got 
screwed. The problem is that the merger was approved in the first place 
by the justice department in October.
Today's deal closing was no surprise.  But none the less one more tragic 
loss for competition.


We all know any concession offered is pointless, when they can't be 
inforced, once a monopoly has taken over and is in control.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] latest ATT filing - Done Deal



Looks like it's a done deal.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_bi_ge/att_bellsouth


Should be interesting to see:

1. If ATT lives up to the terms of the deal.

2. If anybody watches to see if ATT lives up to the terms of the deal.

3. If there's any enforcement action when somebody (assuming somebody 
does watch) sees that ATT is not living up to the terms of the deal.


4. Who gets the 2.5 GHz spectrum.

5. What the competitive telecommunications/Internet landscape looks 
like 3 years from now.



jack



Jack Unger wrote:


More comments...


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=wu

http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=113531WT.svl=news1_3

http://news.com.com/ATT+offers+more+for+BellSouth+deal+approval/2100-1036_3-6146271.html?tag=nefd.top 
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/80579



jack



Jack Unger wrote:


Here's a Beware the Fine Print comment...


http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006164.html


jack



Matt Liotta wrote:


http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread George Rogato
Johnny, you are probably right. There was a guy who was arrested 
recently sitting in his car in front of someones house and we all 
discussed it and there was 2 opinions:

1- If it aint secured, it's open and it 'should' be ok.
2- if you don't have permission your stealing regardless of it being 
an unsecured ap.


So there ya go, your probably right, but I bet you'd have an awfully 
hard time getting anyone to listen in the event of an emergency.. I 
doubt a cop is going to arrest anyone.


So whats the point?

George

JohnnyO wrote:

*** Jack Wrote .

---2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet
access 
is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you 
get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available 
open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is 
OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their

opinion.

Jack - would you mind asking an FCC Official if this is legal or illegal
? I certainly hope that a ham operator can't break laws in order to
steal an internet connection from an UNKNOWING person or business... The
idea of them using someone's internet connection WITH permission during
an emergency is COMPLETELY different then them just loggin on at will to
an OPEN access point. It's illegal if they don't have permission.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g

JohnnyO,

Please see my answers to your questions inline at the bottom of this
email.

Thanks,
 jack


JohnnyO wrote:


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On

Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] recommendation forClient POE integrated radiofor
802.11b/g



Matt Liotta wrote:



Jack Unger wrote:



OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do



what needs to be done.


Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use


of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on 
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access point, and a best effort
internet 


connection.

-Matt



Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today. A police officer isn't a communications expert


which is why many police departments and County Offices of Emergency 
Services fund and support communications teams and vans manned by 
trained hams, who are communications experts. The use of unlicensed 
spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To consider the use of a 
consumer access point not as the primary means of communication but as



one of the many backup communications options is simply being
realistic 

and practical.

jack

*Jack - someone mentioned in an earlier post something regarding

the

difference between a consultant that tells you the rules or knows the
rules and one that don't. Are you a consultant ? and if so - are you
saying that using illegal means to gain internet access is OK ?

JohnnyO



Answers:

1. Yes, I am a WISP consultant, a wireless network designer, a WISP 
trainer, an in-the-field WISP troubleshooter, a WISP business advisor, a


WISP author, a WISP auditor, and a former WISP owner. I've served over 
1500 wireless companies and organizations and trained over 2000 WISP 
personnel since I started my business in 1993. I continue to travel 
across the U.S. and Canada serving WISPs, colleges, cities, and my 
newest client which is the County Art Museum located in the second 
largest city in the U.S. Because of the magic of wireless, the variety


of different challenges that I encounter and the good will and sincerity

of the clients that I work for, I still love this work as I start my 
14th year serving the broadband wireless community.


2. No, I am not saying that using illegal means to gain Internet access 
is OK. You are putting words into my mouth and I'm not going to let you 
get away with that. I said that in an emergency, accessing an available 
open access point to provide communications for emergency personnel is 
OK. If you doubt that, I invite you to run it by the FCC for their

opinion.

Have a Happy New Year,

jack




--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio for 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread George Rogato
Brian, I can send you a couple for free if you need some for your 
emergency response team.


I've got a bunch of Teletronics 802.11B EZ Bridges, 100mw and 200mw, 
that I pulled and replaced with Lonnie's war boards. They work fine. 
Have a web interface for survey and configuration and are just dumb 
bridges that you will need some kind of gateway router.


While I'm at it, does anyone still use these? I'd make you are really 
good deal.


George

Brian Webster wrote:

I'm looking for a good client radio to use in an emergency communications
vehicle. My criteria are, POE, highest gain panel antenna possible,
scan/survey tool built in, web interface, 802.11b at minimum. I'm part of a
ham radio emergency response group and we have our own comms van. I want to
have a client radio that we can use on a push up mast to scan around for an
open access point and grab bandwidth in an emergency on a scene. We respond
with our county Hazmat team for support and the internet is handy. We
already have a Wild Blue setup and that will work when necessary but I would
like to be able to use something with lower latency so we can implement VOIP
at times. I have not studied the 802.11b outdoor client radios in a long
time and thought I would ask opinions here. Price is a consideration but the
feature set is more important. Id' like to stay away from YDI/Proxim just
because of their attitude on the phone whenever I have dealt with them. If
any of you can point me to a link were I can purchase one that would be
great. Have a nice day.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com



--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radiofor 802.11b/g

2006-12-29 Thread David E. Smith

Jack Unger wrote:

I think that you will find that using an open access point to allow a 
first-responder (police, fire, etc.) to communicate with the rest of the 
world would not be considered a crime.


Technically, yes, it probably is. No prosecutor in this country would 
touch it with a ten-foot law dictionary, of course, but it's still (I 
think) a crime.


Unless it isn't... Many (most?) jurisdictions do have special exceptions 
for law enforcement and emergency personnel, allowing (for instance) 
firefighters in civilian vehicles to speed and run red lights, and 
allowing police to commandeer those same civilian vehicles. I don't know 
whether those are specific exemptions, or if there's a more general 
we're saving lives we can do what we need to do law, and it surely 
varies from place to place.


OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do 
what needs to be done.


Moreally and ethically, it may be right, but that doesn't make it legal. 
I'd argue that, especially when lives are at stake, right trumps 
legal, but that doesn't make the issues with legal disappear.


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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Hi Ryan,

I realize this is somewhat tangential to your main point, but I wanted to
point out that EIGRP/IGRP aren't standard protocols, nor will they work with
any other router, necessarily.  If you are shying away from proprietary
equipment, Cisco's proprietary routing protocols are the last things you
should be using. 

Regards,

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

On Dec 28, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:

 Ryan,

 Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-
 certified) brands?

Are you trying to troll? :) I am using all Tranzeo gear now. I am also
looking for other options. I have 2 6500 series radios up at this site. They
are currently sucking wind with 30 clients each.

I ask about the Mikrotik/Star-OS stuff as it appears that there is nothing
illegal about them.

I find this analogous to my father in law building a kit Cobra in his barn.
As long as all the parts fit together in a compatible and non- dangerous way
then they are considered safe and licensable by the local DMV.

 There's no need to go the illegal route and that includes even price 
 these days. Plus, with a legal product you'll get the benefit of 
 support and a warranty.

Even with support and a warranty I find myself hesitant to add additional
clients to this setup. I see others on this list using these other products
with decent support from the community and it seems, reasonable results.

I like the Alvarion stuff, I really do. But I have seen entire
countys/states get messed over by buying a proprietary system and then the
system creator suddenly goes under or pulls a Motorola and forces a
multi-million dollar upgrade. I tend to shy away from proprietary equipment
unless it is able to use standardized protocols (like Cisco's EIGRP vs IGRP
routing. You use the Enhanced if you use all Cisco, but plain non-enhanced
compatible with any other router if you don't want the wiz-bang stuff.)

Now. I ask again the last question: What works with the Tranzeo CPQ clients?
Do you know? ! :)

ryan


 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:22 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

 Sorry for the cross post.

 I am looking at replacing my array of TR6500s with something that can 
 handle more than 30 concurrent users in a graceful manner.

 I have been looking at the Microtik line of products with an SR2 400mW 
 Atheros radio in it.

 I know Matt Larsen uses StarOS with Lucent Cards

 Does anyone have any input as to what direction to go?

 What works with the Tranzeo CPQ clients?

 Thanks!

 ryan


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 **
 **
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
 computer viruses(190).
 **
 **
 







 **
 **
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
 computer viruses(42).
 **
 **
 








 **
 **
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
 computer viruses.
 **
 **



 --
 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Butch Evans

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Carl A jeptha wrote:

Backhaul CPE for some of our lighter microcells. My main Gateway is 
an MT, my Router board (with a valid License) is packed away 
waiting for me to decide something great to do with it. Come on 
Butch tell me something :-)


Ummmyou can send it to me.  :-)


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
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: [WISPA] ESRI Cable Boundaries / Electronics and Internet MarketPotential

2006-12-29 Thread Dylan Oliver

On 12/29/06, Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


You want to make sure what data they are giving you, is it just the
franchise boundaries or the built out cable areas? The built out data is
hard to find or very expensive if available.



Good point .. it may actually be the former.

The product is described here:
http://www.esri.com/data/community_data/cable-boundary/overview.html

--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TRUCKPC

2006-12-29 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

AHA

I've been wondering where the hell that TruckPC request has been coming 
from!!


Occasionally, I have techs who have left the radius authentication 
disabled on an access point and the dhcp logs will start to fill up with 
requests from TruckPC.  They were coming from access points all over 
the place and I was a little perplexed.   It is interesting to watch our 
radius logs too.  I have one AP overlooking a little town of 200 people, 
but it is right next to an interstate and the radius log from that AP is 
always showing logins.  Must be all the trucker laptops whizzing by 
looking for an open AP.


I've been toying with the idea of turning on hotspot functionality so 
that we can provide transient access, and this is probably a good reason 
to do it.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Ralph wrote:

Well, JohnnyO- you might want to also educate these people, then:
http://www.drivertech.com/

Their product, a Truckpc is being installed in many fleet vehicles. One
fleet that comes to mind is US Express, a long haul package hauling service
http://www.usxpress.com/   The device communicates back to the office via
Satellite, Cellular, or WiFi- whichever is available and cheaper.  According
to the manufacturer, it can hunt down open and unsecured access points and
do your HIGHLY illegal act of connecting and sending its data whenever it
can.  


I'm not endorsing this behavior, of course, but I wanted to bring it to the
attention of the list.

How do I know?   My WISP operates hotspot portals that allow casual users to
make use of our mountain and tower-top sectors of WiFi.  These cover major
portions of several towns.  These towns have a major Interstate route
passing through them.  I began noticing numerous TRUCKPC leases being
granted by the DHCP servers in these towns.  I became concerned about what
they were, so I did a little internet research and ended up on the phone
with technical support at Drivertech. This is who confirmed how these
devices operate and who the probable fleet culprit was.

If anyone has portals near major truck routes, check your DHCP logs and see
if you see the TRUCKPC SSID grabbing leases. You may want to either block it
or contact these folks and work out a roaming agreement.



Serious part over, joke follows:

This message brought to you by the World's largest free wireless internet
provider. Look for our SSID wherever you go: Linksys.

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JohnnyO
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE integrated radio
for802.11b/g

Brian - Ham Operator or not - do you realize that what you're planning on
doing is HIGHLY illegal and has several people over the past 2 yrs in
Federal Prison as we speak ?

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


NOW: Emergency Broadband Data Needs. WAS: [WISPA] recommendation for Client POE...

2006-12-29 Thread Jack Unger

Matt,

Please see my responses and additional information inline.

Thanks,
jack


Matt Liotta wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:

Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications 
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to 
make use of hams today.


While a ham could certainly make use of unlicensed spectrum, consumer 
access points, and best effort internet connections, I would think the 
vast majority use 2-way radios similar to what they used years before 
Wi-Fi even existed in the face of an emergency. 


It's not a question of using EITHER 2-way radios OR Wi-Fi access points. 
Hams do use two-way radios, their own very high frequency (VHF) 144-148 
MHz and ultra high frequency (UHF) 450-470 MHz repeater networks for 
local and regional VOICE and low-speed (packet) data coverage and high 
frequency (HF) 3.5-30 MHz equipment for longer-distance (cross-country) 
and International VOICE and low-speed data coverage. The new needs today 
are to be able to transmit and receive data at BROADBAND rates, for 
example to be able to connect and share high-speed data with existing 
BROADBAND public safety data networks as well as the Internet. To meet 
these BROADBAND data needs either license-free Part 15 equipment or Part 
15 equipment modified to work under Part 97 (amateur radio regulations) 
works to meet these broadband data connectivity needs.


The hams that I have met
tend to incorporate new technology in sensible ways as opposed to some 
folks that believe Wi-Fi is the answer to all.


A police officer isn't a communications expert which is why many 
police departments and County Offices of Emergency Services fund and 
support communications teams and vans manned by trained hams, who are 
communications experts.


Such experts would certainly be able to come up with a better emergency 
plan.


Agreed, and they have but again, to meet the BROADBAND data needs, 
low-cost Wi-Fi equipment operated under either Part 15 or Part 97 is a 
natural solution, both at the emergency scene and to connect the 
on-scene personnel to the outside world. This is an obvious opportunity 
for smart WISPs to be involved and to offer to provide network 
connectivity in times of emergency. For example, I just introduced one 
local Southern California Police Department to the local WISP that 
covers the town. After discussions between the PD and the WISP, the 
Police Department decided to put a Trango CPE on the top of the 40-ft 
telescoping mast of the new Emergency Communications Command Vehicle
(RV-sized). The local WISP agreed to provide connectivity at no charge 
when the command vehicle is deployed at an emergency scene one or two 
days every few months. The PD gets backup BROADBAND connectivity that 
they can afford and the WISP gets a lot of free very good publicity. 
BTW, the command vehicle will also have a satellite link and 3G 
connectivity so the WISP connectivity may not be used very often but IT 
IS THERE if it is needed. For voice connectivity, the command vehicle 
will contain all the standard voice radio systems. This is what most 
people would agree is a good communications plan.



The use of unlicensed spectrum is becoming more and more the norm. To 
consider the use of a consumer access point not as the primary means 
of communication but as one of the many backup communications options 
is simply being realistic and practical.


I don't see it as being realistic and practical. I can think of very few 
circumstances where a little bit of planning wouldn't provide for 
reliable communications during an emergency. 


Again, it's not an either/or situation. Unlicensed spectrum can and does 
fill a very real broadband communications need for emergency and public 
safety personnel. Both reliable VOICE and BROADBAND DATA/VIDEO needs 
exist now. Smart WISPs won't have to think very long before figuring out 
that there is an important and beneficial role for them to play in 
meeting their communities emergency communications needs.


I don't want to beat this horse to death (horsey??... horsey??) so I'll 
sign off now.

  jack


In a circumstance where
there is a proper communication plan that fails because the disaster is 
so great I'm sure the consumer's open access point on a best effort 
internet connection isn't going to work anyway.


It sure did seem like all the organizations with mobile satellite 
equipment were communicating just fine in recent disasters. A portable 
VSAT on a usage plan is quite cheap and very effective.


-Matt



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: 

[WISPA] Cool ideas for RouterOS....

2006-12-29 Thread Butch Evans
I'd like to throw this out for the weekend.  I want to gather some ideas for 
IMPLEMENTATIONS you'd like to see with existing RouterOS technology.  I have a 
few that I can think of off the top of my head that I will try to get 
documented (some possibly for free - to be posted on my website).  For example:


1. Automated virus detection - this application would need to be able to detect 
virus like activity (whatever that means) and automatically cause the offender 
- if they are on-net - to be disconnected except for the ability to visit 
http://housecall.antivirus.com and test to see if they have removed the 
virus(es) before allowing full access again.


2. Automatically build a list of valid SMTP servers based on servers that have 
been used to check email (I've done this one several times).  This will prevent 
those viruses and spam trojans from getting your IP blacklisted if you NAT.


3. Queue mechanism that implements an automated fair access policy (similar to 
what some of the satellite companies do) - I have done something SIMILAR to 
this, but implementing this properly will take a bit more work.


OK...So I've got you started...now step forth with your ideas (either 
implemented already or just a wish-list) and let's come up with some really 
cool stuff!  While we're at it, you can let me know what you think of the above 
ideas...are they worth the effort?


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
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/