[WISPA] Access US

2007-01-29 Thread Peter R.
Victor Mattison said Access US has a $4.3 million wireless Internet deal 
with the USDA.

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/01/29/story13.html?t=printable

http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/01/brick-network-acquired-by-access-us.html

--


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] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Anyone Mind if I send this out

Dear Sirs,

Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me.  KILLING 
me


I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces.  While I fully 
agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no 
auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless 
mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half.


What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of 
cable and DSL.  That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug 
it in and poof, you have internet.  No truck roll.


At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, 
LOW prices for it.


Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. 
Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless.


33' minimum antenna heights?  Pre programmed exclusion zones?  No accounting 
for LOCAL terrain or foliage?  Geolocation of EVERY CPE device?  You've, via 
your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the 
operators from using this band.  Very few people will be able to justify the 
$500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems.  And 
who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? 
People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside 
their houses, not putting them back up!


There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.  You say it's needed to help deal with local interference 
issues etc.  But that's not likely the case.  If WE can't hear the 
broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not 
likely interfere either.  Especially at the very low signal levels you have 
built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.


I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to 
identify the owner of the ap.  Then the people that need to figure out 
anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where.  I'll 
already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too.


Speaking of GPS.  Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual 
antenna systems for EVERY customer?  We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS 
one for each cpe under your plan.


The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't 
like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy 
and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions.  One of 
the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees.  Now 
you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in 
EVERY installation?  No thanks.  We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we 
want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's 
snow on the roof!


The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help 
you with your standard.  As it is, it looks like this standard was developed 
by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than 
high volume devices.  Our industry has plenty of high margin products to 
choose from already.  Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. 
Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right 
conditions.  What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products 
that will go through walls and trees etc.  If our customers wanted us to put 
in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already 
be doing it.  People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay 
$500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers.


Thank you for you time,

Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA FCC committee chairman
(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] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Marlon,

My opinion, but you should polish it considerably. Be more clear Marlon
and concise, and totally eliminate the are-you-crazy tone. This letter
is suitable if you are an individual, it is not suitable if being sent
on behalf of WISPA. While impassioned, it really is not professional and
will show WISPA in a bad light.

As I said, it is just my opinion my friend.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Anyone Mind if I send this out

Dear Sirs,

Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me.
KILLING 
me

I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces.  While I fully 
agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no 
auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or
wireless 
mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half.

What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that
of 
cable and DSL.  That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they
plug 
it in and poof, you have internet.  No truck roll.

At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and
LOW, 
LOW prices for it.

Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of
sense. 
Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless.

33' minimum antenna heights?  Pre programmed exclusion zones?  No
accounting 
for LOCAL terrain or foliage?  Geolocation of EVERY CPE device?  You've,
via 
your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the 
operators from using this band.  Very few people will be able to justify
the 
$500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems.
And 
who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses?

People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside 
their houses, not putting them back up!

There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.  You say it's needed to help deal with local interference 
issues etc.  But that's not likely the case.  If WE can't hear the 
broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not 
likely interfere either.  Especially at the very low signal levels you
have 
built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to

identify the owner of the ap.  Then the people that need to figure out 
anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where.
I'll 
already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too.

Speaking of GPS.  Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in
dual 
antenna systems for EVERY customer?  We'll need the rec. antenna AND a
GPS 
one for each cpe under your plan.

The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but
don't 
like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to
deploy 
and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions.  One
of 
the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees.
Now 
you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in

EVERY installation?  No thanks.  We'll go high when we need to,
otherwise we 
want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when
there's 
snow on the roof!

The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to
help 
you with your standard.  As it is, it looks like this standard was
developed 
by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather
than 
high volume devices.  Our industry has plenty of high margin products to

choose from already.  Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. 
Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right 
conditions.  What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap
products 
that will go through walls and trees etc.  If our customers wanted us to
put 
in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd
already 
be doing it.  People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay 
$500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers.

Thank you for you time,

Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA FCC committee chairman
(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/





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious 

Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs

2007-01-29 Thread Mike Ireton


If you've ever been to Las Vegas, check out their monorail sometime and 
I think you'll see the same problem. AP'S and Amplifiers every 300' 
along the track, obviously the person(s) spec'ing it out, had no prior 
experience tis' a sad, sad story


Mike-


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

200 lbs of aps and antennas  How the hell is THAT possible?

I'll bet all of my gear weighs in less than that and I've got 6000 
square miles over coverage, not just one puny little airplane!


Steve, do your old bosses need help over there or what?  You need to go 
back to work for Boing!

marlon



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Uses our hoppers, I'm happy to say. We had nothing to do with the sale,
design or install though, so I can't speak to the architecture. We
learned about the project later.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Ireton
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:15 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs


If you've ever been to Las Vegas, check out their monorail sometime and 
I think you'll see the same problem. AP'S and Amplifiers every 300' 
along the track, obviously the person(s) spec'ing it out, had no prior 
experience tis' a sad, sad story

Mike-


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 200 lbs of aps and antennas  How the hell is THAT possible?
 
 I'll bet all of my gear weighs in less than that and I've got 6000 
 square miles over coverage, not just one puny little airplane!
 
 Steve, do your old bosses need help over there or what?  You need to
go 
 back to work for Boing!
 marlon


-- 
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/


RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing
American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep
inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income
levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700
MHZ frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a
product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very
exciting.   We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low
power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural
areas.  This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your
successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if
we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for
rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of
Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering
and implementation.  The specifications become even more focused with
the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)
device.  These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and
easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to
$1000) installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an
in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are
confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to
homeowners.  It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service
to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario.
Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating
roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the
difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation
and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes
to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna
height requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have
been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal
abuse has been well documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have
been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting
organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to
their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be
acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of
problems should one occur.  This uses the innovation we have embrassed
and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be
quickly qwelled locally.  This resolves our need for GPS units and other
expensive testing equipment not available to all providers.  It also
eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE,
another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or
unlicensed frequency.

Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the
spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC.
Again we 

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Forbes Mercy
Ouch did I really say embarrassed instead of embraced I really should proof 
this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs.  Oh well I 
did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for 
English 101. 

Forbes

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like 
it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take offense and feel 
free to change it.  As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at 
it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little 
calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,


I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an 
organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP owners 
and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous 
opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These meetings have 
resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies.  We 
feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have 
been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and 
pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to 
all income levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ 
frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a product that 
actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting.   We have battled 
the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided 
innovative services to the most rural areas.  This is a testiment to the vision 
of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space 
just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural 
development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary 
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no 
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of Wireless has 
little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. 
 The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of 
every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device.  These proposeals could 
eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to $1000) 
installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an in-house antenna 
system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting 
land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners.  It redirects costs 
from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run 
for every install' scenario.   Most of our operators have been pleased with the 
prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top 
work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of 
operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead 
goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all 
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with 
professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well 
documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have been built into your standard 
for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to 
have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a 
beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the 
ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur.  This uses the 
innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet 
unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally.  This resolves our need for GPS units 
and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers.  It also 
eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another 
expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed 
frequency.

Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs 
to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC.   Again we reiterate 
the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be 
within reason.   The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of 
rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local 
responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs 
affordable.

As we have been in the past, the Wireless Internet 

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more
fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known
(I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for
them.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel
and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int
erference_


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing
American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep
inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income
levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700
MHZ frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a
product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very
exciting.   We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low
power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural
areas.  This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your
successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if
we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for
rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of
Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering
and implementation.  The specifications become even more focused with
the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)
device.  These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and
easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to
$1000) installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an
in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are
confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to
homeowners.  It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service
to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario.
Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating
roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the
difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation
and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes
to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna
height requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have
been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal
abuse has been well documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have
been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting
organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to
their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be
acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster 

[WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread Peter R.


 January 16, 2007


 ATT to offer $20 'naked' DSL service


   LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY

Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming.

Within a few months, ATT is expected to start charging $19.95 a month 
for naked DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other ATT service, 
including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a 
stand-alone broadband subscription.


ATT also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy 
ATT-branded phone service.


ATT plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock 
starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 
states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including 
California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.


Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. 
telecommunications industry, recently approved ATT's acquisition of 
BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, 
ATT agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains.


ATT is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the 
$10 rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of 
Consumers Union, says he expects ATT to move faster.


Under the terms of the FCC agreement, ATT is required to offer naked 
DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for 
broadband. That describes many of ATT's biggest markets, says 
Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement.


Under the deal, ATT's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits 
per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits 
popular with many U.S. consumers, it's more than good enough for 
Internet telephony, Kimmelman says.


As such, he thinks the twin offers could help spur sales of Internet 
telephony across the United States. This opens the door for consumers 
to pick other local and long-distance providers, Kimmelman says.


For years, Kimmelman notes, consumers had to pay double, essentially, if 
they wanted to buy a high-speed broadband connection from one carrier 
and phone service from another. He says that let phone companies such as 
ATT push broadband sales while preserving their core phone business, 
which still accounts for the bulk of profit.


While ATT, for example, charges $45 for naked DSL, it sells a bundle 
that includes phone and DSL for just $28 a month.


Cable TV companies do the same thing. If purchased separately, Time 
Warner charges $45 a month for its high-speed cable modem service and 
$49.95 for digital phone. A bundle of both - plus TV service - costs $99.


Comcast's service is among the priciest: It charges almost $58 a month 
for stand-alone broadband.


Kimmelman, for one, thinks ATT's new DSL pricing will help discipline 
broadband pricing. Once ATT's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly 
available, other broadband providers, including cable, will be 
hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price.


http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/TECH01/609070517/1001/TECH

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4

2007-01-29 Thread Don Annas
If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree
Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios.
It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of
the 5.3/5.8 range :-)

 

 

 

_

Don Annas

336.510.3800 x111

336.510.3801 fax

HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]

HYPERLINK http://www.triadtelecom.com/www.TriadTelecom.com

_



 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007
 
  
attachment: image001.jpg
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread George Rogato
ATT is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at 
least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of ATT's 
biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement.


Under the deal, ATT's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits 
per second.



So, this means ONLY in the markets that have 80% broadband penetration?

And it's only 768k, so upgrades are the norm.

Wonder if that icludes takes, modem rental and other fees may apply, as 
wel as early termination fees?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4

2007-01-29 Thread Ross Cornett

what polarity contact me off line.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4



If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree
Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios.
It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of
the 5.3/5.8 range :-)







_

Don Annas

336.510.3800 x111

336.510.3801 fax

HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]

HYPERLINK http://www.triadtelecom.com/www.TriadTelecom.com

_






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007










--
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] Tranzeo 2.4

2007-01-29 Thread Ross Cornett

:]  ok.. i didn't read all the way first... simple male issue...

please contact me offline.

- Original Message - 
From: Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4



If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db 90degree
Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz radios.
It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly outside of
the 5.3/5.8 range :-)







_

Don Annas

336.510.3800 x111

336.510.3801 fax

HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]

HYPERLINK http://www.triadtelecom.com/www.TriadTelecom.com

_






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007










--
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] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread Chadd Thompson

Almost makes you want to close the doors on the rural market and let the
FCC/Gov fund/force ATT or whoever to provide service in these underserved
areas. 

It is going to get to the point where we are only going to be able to
compete in areas where DSL/Cable is not available. I am not sure about the
rest of you but there are not enough of those customers in our area to
survive on that alone. 

It disgusts me anymore to see this type of stuff, well this and to see how
many ISP's are getting huge amount of $$$ from the government to provide
service in areas that are already served by one or more ISP's. One of our
local ISP's has received a cash cow to deploy fiber over a good portion of
Southern IL. I am surprised Scriv hasn't mentioned this as I think it is
going to encroach on a few areas he currently serves.

 
 Kimmelman, for one, thinks ATT's new DSL pricing will help discipline
 broadband pricing. Once ATT's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly
 available, other broadband providers, including cable, will be
 hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price.
 

They need to do something with ATT to get them to improve service and
reduce cost for competing ISP's who are forced to either buy bandwidth from
them or pay their outrageous local loop prices.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread George Rogato
I know it's not the answer your looking for, but I am in a market served 
by cable and dsl all at just as fast rates and just about the same 
pricing or less.


My advantage is the personalized service.

When was the last time the owner of ATT went to the home of a customer 
and gave them support.


Our nitch is being constantly redefined. Today it is service more than 
availability.


At least there is a segment of the market where we win hands down, the 
quality of service segment.


George

Chadd Thompson wrote:

Almost makes you want to close the doors on the rural market and let the
FCC/Gov fund/force ATT or whoever to provide service in these underserved
areas. 


It is going to get to the point where we are only going to be able to
compete in areas where DSL/Cable is not available. I am not sure about the
rest of you but there are not enough of those customers in our area to
survive on that alone. 


It disgusts me anymore to see this type of stuff, well this and to see how
many ISP's are getting huge amount of $$$ from the government to provide
service in areas that are already served by one or more ISP's. One of our
local ISP's has received a cash cow to deploy fiber over a good portion of
Southern IL. I am surprised Scriv hasn't mentioned this as I think it is
going to encroach on a few areas he currently serves.


Kimmelman, for one, thinks ATT's new DSL pricing will help discipline
broadband pricing. Once ATT's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly
available, other broadband providers, including cable, will be
hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price.



They need to do something with ATT to get them to improve service and
reduce cost for competing ISP's who are forced to either buy bandwidth from
them or pay their outrageous local loop prices.




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread Peter R.

Taxes, fees, and recovery surcharges are extra.
Modem is free.
Early term is extra.
They didn't mention if you had to have a Cingular account.

George Rogato wrote:

ATT is required to offer naked DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at 
least 80 percent upgraded for broadband. That describes many of ATT's 
biggest markets, says Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement.


Under the deal, ATT's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 
kilobits per second.



So, this means ONLY in the markets that have 80% broadband penetration?

And it's only 768k, so upgrades are the norm.

Wonder if that icludes takes, modem rental and other fees may apply, 
as wel as early termination fees?



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Tranzeo 2.4

2007-01-29 Thread chris cooper

I am interested.  Please hit me off list.

 If anyone is running Tranzeo 2.4, I have about 4 of their 17db
90degree
 Horizontal sectors collecting dust. As well as a few of the 900MHz
radios.
 It turns out the big city of Greensboro is not very RF friendly
outside of
 the 5.3/5.8 range :-)

Thanks
Chris Cooper
Intelliwave

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread Jack Unger

Nice words from ATT but...

I'm in Los Angeles County only 1/2 mile from the city/country line. ATT 
doesn't offer DSL here - apparently they don't think there are enough 
customers to justify the cost of upgrading their network. Will ATT be 
required to offer DSL here? It sounds like they will according to the 
terms of the ATT purchase of Bell South. I think the Los Angeles market 
is at least 80% upgraded for broadband but will ATT ever REALLY offer 
DSL here? I'm not holding my breath. Will there ever be any enforcement 
of these merger terms? Again, I'm not holding my breath.


I don't want to seem (or feel) ungrateful because half the secret of 
enjoying life is remembering to practice an attitude of gratitude. I'm 
grateful that there is a WISP in the area who provides me with 256 kbps 
symmetrical service for only $99.99 per month.


jack




Peter R. wrote:



 January 16, 2007


 ATT to offer $20 'naked' DSL service


   LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY

Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming.

Within a few months, ATT is expected to start charging $19.95 a month 
for naked DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other ATT service, 
including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a 
stand-alone broadband subscription.


ATT also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy 
ATT-branded phone service.


ATT plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock 
starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 
states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including 
California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.


Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. 
telecommunications industry, recently approved ATT's acquisition of 
BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, 
ATT agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains.


ATT is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the 
$10 rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of 
Consumers Union, says he expects ATT to move faster.


Under the terms of the FCC agreement, ATT is required to offer naked 
DSL for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for 
broadband. That describes many of ATT's biggest markets, says 
Kimmelman, who helped negotiate the settlement.


Under the deal, ATT's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits 
per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits 
popular with many U.S. consumers, it's more than good enough for 
Internet telephony, Kimmelman says.


As such, he thinks the twin offers could help spur sales of Internet 
telephony across the United States. This opens the door for consumers 
to pick other local and long-distance providers, Kimmelman says.


For years, Kimmelman notes, consumers had to pay double, essentially, if 
they wanted to buy a high-speed broadband connection from one carrier 
and phone service from another. He says that let phone companies such as 
ATT push broadband sales while preserving their core phone business, 
which still accounts for the bulk of profit.


While ATT, for example, charges $45 for naked DSL, it sells a bundle 
that includes phone and DSL for just $28 a month.


Cable TV companies do the same thing. If purchased separately, Time 
Warner charges $45 a month for its high-speed cable modem service and 
$49.95 for digital phone. A bundle of both - plus TV service - costs $99.


Comcast's service is among the priciest: It charges almost $58 a month 
for stand-alone broadband.


Kimmelman, for one, thinks ATT's new DSL pricing will help discipline 
broadband pricing. Once ATT's $19.95 rate for naked DSL is broadly 
available, other broadband providers, including cable, will be 
hard-pressed to keep hiding behind a higher price.


http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/TECH01/609070517/1001/TECH 





--
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] $20 'naked' DSL

2007-01-29 Thread Ross Cornett
I have not and will not be concerned about the phone company.  We all should 
be streaming our businesses to have multiple revenue streams to adjust to 
the influx of customers coming and going from DSL and Cable.  I don't know 
what it is like in your areas, but just because they are here doesn't mean 
any of the following.

1.  their networks are capable even after upgrading.
2.  they have any clue on costomer service and the needs of their valued 
customers

3.  the customer is typically sick of the out of town influence
4. they cannot stay on a price point without stuffing all the inclusives 
down the customers throat.
5. they can never have the quality control that we have when we manage our 
networks becuase we care down to the placement of the ethernet in the home 
for the customers
6. computers are always going to create the need for us to repair them. 
ATT can't manage a phone let alone a computer
7.  When you get so big as they are money is everything.  We alwasy maintain 
customer relationships are everything.

8.  ok... you get my point.

As for $99 per month for you 256K... i am underpriced that is what the 
market will do for you.


It is an abosolute shame that the large companies have destroyed the margins 
in this business.  They found that they cann't manage the money from the 
phone services and now when they all had a chance to make some real money 
the screwed that up too.  Give it time and stay the course.  They cannot 
continue to smash the price to floor and make the money they need to stay 
afloat.  Mergers cost money, network upgrades cost money, every time they 
slip in cheap and press the locals out of business they win again.  Spread 
your streams out and stay the course.  Install Dish, sell computers, offer 
voip, network homes, fix computers, go onsite to fix the phones that the 
phone companies charge to much for, install cable, etc... shore up your 
business by spreading your weight out and when the ice gets thin from DSL 
you won't fall through the ice


Sorry so lengthy... but Telco stands for lack of quality and your money is 
leaving town.  Rural America doesn't like.


Ross

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] $20 'naked' DSL



Nice words from ATT but...

I'm in Los Angeles County only 1/2 mile from the city/country line. ATT 
doesn't offer DSL here - apparently they don't think there are enough 
customers to justify the cost of upgrading their network. Will ATT be 
required to offer DSL here? It sounds like they will according to the 
terms of the ATT purchase of Bell South. I think the Los Angeles market 
is at least 80% upgraded for broadband but will ATT ever REALLY offer 
DSL here? I'm not holding my breath. Will there ever be any enforcement of 
these merger terms? Again, I'm not holding my breath.


I don't want to seem (or feel) ungrateful because half the secret of 
enjoying life is remembering to practice an attitude of gratitude. I'm 
grateful that there is a WISP in the area who provides me with 256 kbps 
symmetrical service for only $99.99 per month.


jack




Peter R. wrote:



 January 16, 2007


 ATT to offer $20 'naked' DSL service


   LESLIE CAULEY, USA TODAY

Cheaper high-speed Internet service is coming.

Within a few months, ATT is expected to start charging $19.95 a month 
for naked DSL, meaning you don't have to buy any other ATT service, 
including phone, to get that rate. It currently charges $45 for a 
stand-alone broadband subscription.


ATT also is developing $10 DSL for new subscribers who also buy 
ATT-branded phone service.


ATT plans to offer both services for at least 30 months. The clock 
starts as soon as the media giant starts selling them in any of the 22 
states where it is the incumbent local phone company, including 
California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.


Why so cheap? Three words: Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, which has broad regulatory control over the U.S. 
telecommunications industry, recently approved ATT's acquisition of 
BellSouth. To get needed votes from the FCC's two Democratic members, 
ATT agreed, reluctantly, to offer these DSL bargains.


ATT is required to roll out the $19.95 offer within one year and the $10 
rate within six months. Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of 
Consumers Union, says he expects ATT to move faster.


Under the terms of the FCC agreement, ATT is required to offer naked DSL 
for $19.95 in markets that are at least 80 percent upgraded for 
broadband. That describes many of ATT's biggest markets, says Kimmelman, 
who helped negotiate the settlement.


Under the deal, ATT's cheap DSL products will clock in at 768 kilobits 
per second. While that's slower than the 1.5 megabits to 3 megabits 
popular with many U.S. consumers, it's more than good enough for 
Internet telephony, Kimmelman says.


As such, he thinks the twin offers 

[WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty Roadstar!

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you),

I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder
of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based
in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This
is great news and here's why:

Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over
1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging exurb edges of
the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and
foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman
when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a
large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many
of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts
dignitaries from here and abroad. 

Marty also has another incumbent asset, shall we say, he used to work
in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a
some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly
hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business
newspaper.

Folks, Marty is like you in that he boot-strapped this business from
his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind
his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he
can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began
with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so
far!) on BreezeACCESS VL.

Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I
count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his
business.

Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he
is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice).

Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty.

Sincerely,

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 Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more
fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known
(I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for
them.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel
and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int
erference_


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing
American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep
inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income
levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700
MHZ frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a
product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very
exciting.   We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low
power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural
areas.  This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC 

RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME Marty Roadstar!

2007-01-29 Thread Rick Harnish
Welcome Marty, it will be an honor to meet you now that Patrick has laid
such high expectations! :)  

Patrick, you just earned the job of official WISPA Welcome Wagon Liaison.

Put that feather in your cap :)

Respectfully,

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 Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME
Marty Roadstar!

Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you),

I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder
of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based
in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This
is great news and here's why:

Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over
1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging exurb edges of
the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and
foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman
when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a
large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many
of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts
dignitaries from here and abroad. 

Marty also has another incumbent asset, shall we say, he used to work
in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a
some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly
hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business
newspaper.

Folks, Marty is like you in that he boot-strapped this business from
his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind
his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he
can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began
with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so
far!) on BreezeACCESS VL.

Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I
count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his
business.

Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he
is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice).

Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty.

Sincerely,

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 Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more
fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known
(I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for
them.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel
and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int
erference_


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other 

[WISPA] dragonwave airpair IP

2007-01-29 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

Can someone with a Dragonwave AirPair setup contact me offlist? I'm 
having a slight issue with the IP addressing of these units.


Thanks,

Travis
Microserv
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOMEMarty Roadstar!

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Beats putting that feature up my...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:00 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission --
WELCOMEMarty Roadstar!

Welcome Marty, it will be an honor to meet you now that Patrick has laid
such high expectations! :)  

Patrick, you just earned the job of official WISPA Welcome Wagon
Liaison.

Put that feather in your cap :)

Respectfully,

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 Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOME
Marty Roadstar!

Dear WISPA members and friends (which includes many of you),

I just learned some very good news -- Marty Dougherty, CEO and founder
of Roadstar Internet (http://www.roadstarinternet.com/index.php), based
in Loundon County, VA recently joined WISPA as a paid member WISP. This
is great news and here's why:

Marty operates a high profile and large WISP network that connects over
1,000 homes and business primarily in the challenging exurb edges of
the rolling Northern Virginia country side (all forests, fields, and
foothills). Roadstar was the first WISP ever visited by a FCC chairman
when former Chairman Powell toured the NOC and a few customers with a
large entourage and press back around 2002. Since then Marty, like many
of you, has been a frequent face at the FCC and he regularly hosts
dignitaries from here and abroad. 

Marty also has another incumbent asset, shall we say, he used to work
in the telco space. So his insight is fantastic. As well, Marty has a
some staff that he is willing to have assist WISPA, such as is newly
hired PR person who is the former editor of the Loudon Business
newspaper.

Folks, Marty is like you in that he boot-strapped this business from
his own pocket and literally from the garage-turned-office from behind
his house. He has repeatedly turned down major investment offers so he
can continue to grow under his control. Also like many of you he began
with 802.11b, then migrated to another brand, and eventually settled (so
far!) on BreezeACCESS VL.

Maybe most importantly, Marty is a great person like so many of you. I
count him as a friend and I am proud to have contributed to earning his
business.

Please welcome him and make use of his many talents...I know we do (he
is typically a top choice for beta testing and other advice).

Thanks Rick and John, in advance, for humoring me as I introduce Marty.

Sincerely,

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 Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more
fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known
(I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for
them.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel
and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int
erference_


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners 

RE: [WISPA] I'm gonna do the honors without permission -- WELCOMEMarty Roadstar!

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
...nose   ;)








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] Mikrotik issues with VLANs

2007-01-29 Thread Don Annas
Recently, we decided to run VLANs off of one of the Mikrotik routers to
provide better port density.  Basically routed vlans to a Cisco 2950 switch
(one VLAN per AP).  To our disappointment, we found that this scenario
yielded packet loss even pinging between a hardwired radio and the Mikrotik.
We assumed that this bust be a bad cable or defective switch so we setup
another in the lab with the same results.

 

Has anyone else used the Mikrotik with VLANs into a Cisco switch. To take it
a step further, if you have time, try pinging a device with a flood ping at
20 ms from the MTIK or the ping ip command from your Cisco switch with about
5,000 36 packets and I suspect you’ll see the same thing.

 

Any suggestions/ideas are appreciated as always :-)

 

- Don


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 1/28/2007
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
Man, I's can really read readen, but he a writen! Marlon, ya all wanted to
mention Vasoline, but Mercy,he sliped it by with the K-Y!
chuck

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE


Anyone Mind if I send this out

Dear Sirs,

Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me.  KILLING

me

I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces.  While I fully 
agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no 
auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless 
mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half.

What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of 
cable and DSL.  That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug

it in and poof, you have internet.  No truck roll.

At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, 
LOW prices for it.

Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. 
Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless.

33' minimum antenna heights?  Pre programmed exclusion zones?  No accounting

for LOCAL terrain or foliage?  Geolocation of EVERY CPE device?  You've, via

your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the 
operators from using this band.  Very few people will be able to justify the

$500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems.  And 
who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? 
People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside 
their houses, not putting them back up!

There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.  You say it's needed to help deal with local interference 
issues etc.  But that's not likely the case.  If WE can't hear the 
broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not 
likely interfere either.  Especially at the very low signal levels you have 
built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to 
identify the owner of the ap.  Then the people that need to figure out 
anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where.  I'll 
already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too.

Speaking of GPS.  Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual

antenna systems for EVERY customer?  We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS 
one for each cpe under your plan.

The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't 
like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy 
and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions.  One of 
the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees.  Now

you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in 
EVERY installation?  No thanks.  We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we

want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's 
snow on the roof!

The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help 
you with your standard.  As it is, it looks like this standard was developed

by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than 
high volume devices.  Our industry has plenty of high margin products to 
choose from already.  Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. 
Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right 
conditions.  What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products 
that will go through walls and trees etc.  If our customers wanted us to put

in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already 
be doing it.  People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay 
$500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers.

Thank you for you time,

Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA FCC committee chairman
(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/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
This one's for you Dee!

 

JUNEAU, Alaska - About 10,000 Juneau residents briefly lost power after
a bald eagle lugging a deer head crashed into transmission lines. You
have to live in Alaska to have this kind of outage scenario, said Gayle
Wood, an Alaska Electric Light  Power spokeswoman. This is the story
of the overly ambitious eagle who evidently found a deer head in the
landfill.

The bird, weighed down by the deer head, apparently failed to clear the
transmission lines, she said. A repair crew found the eagle dead, the
deer head nearby.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_fe_st/eagle_power_outage

 

Patrick Leary

AVP WISP Markets

Alvarion, Inc.

o: 650.314.2628

c: 760.580.0080

Vonage: 650.641.1243

[EMAIL PROTECTED]








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] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges

2007-01-29 Thread W.D.McKinney
Thanks Patrick. Saw that earlier today and got a chuckle out of it. We do have 
a lot of Bald Eagles in Alaska, and here's a story worth reading: 

http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/AlaskasEagleLady.asp

Juneau is one of the cities getting BreezeMAX you know :-)

-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: Patrick Leary
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:59:40 -0900
Subject:
[WISPA] OT: Alaska poses unique challenges


 This one's for you Dee!
 
  
 
 JUNEAU, Alaska - About 10,000 Juneau residents briefly lost power after
 a bald eagle lugging a deer head crashed into transmission lines. You
 have to live in Alaska to have this kind of outage scenario, said Gayle
 Wood, an Alaska Electric Light  Power spokeswoman. This is the story
 of the overly ambitious eagle who evidently found a deer head in the
 landfill.
 
 The bird, weighed down by the deer head, apparently failed to clear the
 transmission lines, she said. A repair crew found the eagle dead, the
 deer head nearby.
 
  
 
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_fe_st/eagle_power_outage
 
  
 
 Patrick Leary
 
 AVP WISP Markets
 
 Alvarion, Inc.
 
 o: 650.314.2628
 
 c: 760.580.0080
 
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 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] Service Offerings - Competing

2007-01-29 Thread Sam Tetherow
I'm sure much of this will already have been covered (been out for a 
couple of days).  But since it was addressed to me


Don't know the details of the truck driver story, but if it wasn't his 
responsibility all he needs to do is leave the truck blocking the 
loading dock and walk into the store and ask the manager to call his 
boss and they can get it sorted from there.


As for the pickles, if Walmart decides all they want to pay for a gallon 
of pickles is 3.97 that is their right.  No one is forcing anyone to 
sell at 3.97.


The legislature of CA is costing CA millions of dollars each year, not 
Walmart.  If the legislature wants to pick up the tab for workers who 
aren't insured by their employer that is their own fault.  Are you going 
to complain about every other business in CA that doesn't insure their 
employees?


A little bit of research on the internet will also fill me in about 
black helicopters and tinfoil hats...


The trick is conveying to your customer what your plan is in terms that 
they understand.  I'm in a primarily residential market and compete with 
DSL.  The selling point of my service, is just that service.  I still 
have to compete with Qwest pricing but I only have to be close on cost 
to speed and sell them on the service.  It isn't that hard to sell 
service vs the phone company.


But I have to disagree with everyone that is on the bitcap bandwagon.  I 
understand fully the issues that come with p2p and streaming video but 
that is what is driving the internet today. 

I take pride in providing the internet to my customers and I want to 
provide the type of internet service I would expect from my connection. 

The internet is no longer about web pages and email it is about 
podcasts, video streams and downloaded movies and if we aren't ready to 
provide that type of service they we are just relagating ourselves to 
being the new dialup with 128K plans and draconian bandwidth policies.


I don't see bit metering (paying by the bit not on a transfer rate) as 
being a billing model for the future because every other communication 
model is trending away from it and I doubt the customer will put up with 
it given a choice.  Phone service is abandoning the per minute pricing 
for pricing plans which are tending toward unlimited minutes (mobile to 
mobile, home network, after hours).


Also as more and more services migrate to the internet people are not 
going to want to worry about their bit caps.  The idea of having to look 
at the file size of a netflix movie download and they try to figure out 
how much it is going to cost me to download (above the netflix cost) 
reminds me all to much of the old dailup days when we were paying by the 
minute.


As a businessman you should be trying to squeeze every last dime out of 
your customers.  The trick is to provide the service that will make them 
want to pay every last dime of it.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

John J. Thomas wrote:

Sam, Walmart has made most of its money by screwing others.

Truck driver makes delivery to Walmart ad unload pallets. Goes to have 
receiving sign for them. Receiving refuses to sign, and says that *after* the 
truck driver *unloads* the items off the pallets, then he will sign. This is 
NOT the truck drivers responsibility.

Walmart decides that a Gallon jar of pickles shoud cost $3.97-*regardless* of 
whether the company can make 10 cents on that. Company sells $3.97 jar of 
pickles and goes bankrupt after that.

Walmart is costing the State of California Millions of dollars each year just by telling 
its employees  we won't give you that benefit, but if you go apply for State 
assistance, they will.

A little bit of research on the Internet will show you to what degree they have 
gone to to screw others. If that is the way you want to do business, then so be 
it. Me, my family and anyone else I have influence over won't do business with 
you-period.

You have to structure your pricing in a way that you can successfully market. I have a 
problem with those people that say 512k unlimited $39.99 per month. Then, 
when you download a single movie, they cut your service. That is Dishonesty-period. If 
you tell your clients, 4 Gig for $39.99, then there is no issue. I'm sure MANY are going 
to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, and they certainly have a right to. At some point, this 
will have to be the way it works-you can't sell unlimited pipes for $39.99 per month, 
when you have to pay $100 or more per month-the economics are not there.

I applaud Marlon for what he is doing, and I hope that he will review his 
pricing regularly. If he finds that he can drop the rates a bit, or adjust the 
limits upward, I'm sure his clients will appreciate it. They should also 
appreciate that fact that he isn't trying to squeeze every last dime from them.

John Thomas



  

-Original Message-
From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:49 PM
To: 'WISPA