Re: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
Faisal Imtiaz wrote: I have a very tough time trying to figure out who is 'friendly' & 'Sympathetic' to the cause of the ISP's at the FCC. What you all have to remember is that the FTC and the FCC are supposed to watch over the CONSUMERS. Not small businesses, but the end user. -- 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] calea meeting with the fbi
wispa wrote: The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the funds to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our Constitution. Yeah, that will happen. The FCC realizes that the PSTN is tipping and that we still have a need to catch terrorists and pedophiles. But hey that's just my rational take on it. I'm at VPF where SS8 and Acme Packet have gone over Lawful Intercept extensively. Want a copy of the PowerPoint? You have to send me you contact info. 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] RE: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th
I've been there with the crew, before the days of WISPA, but I don't get down there much, cause I don't have the time / money :) When I do, I will! -Original Message- From: geowires [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:02 AM To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th Rick Smith wrote: > well, it's been awesome for us. We've already sold a couple of hotspot > management packages locally just based on the fear that the FBI will come > knocking. > There is a good group going back to DC the 2nd I believe. Lets see what they bring back. Why haven't you gone to DC for WISPA, your just an Amtrack away? George ** ISPCON Spring 2007 - May 23 - 25- Orlando, FL www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** The best money you'll spend on your business all year- Save $100 until Friday, March 30! ** ___ The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List ___ To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/ To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] RE: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th
well, it's been awesome for us. We've already sold a couple of hotspot management packages locally just based on the fear that the FBI will come knocking. I'm really hoping that CALEA requirements settle down to allowing tcpdump / ethereal captures... This is what WISPA should be lobbying for ... It'll create a grass-roots industry just to solve that problem, ala Y2k. -Original Message- From: Doug Ratcliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:38 PM To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th So are networks such as free muni-Wifi going to be CALEA also? How would a free network ever be CALEA compliant? Is every hotspot out there going to need CALEA compliance as well? I mean, a paid hotspot operator behind a firewall is just as much as WISP as we all are. Should they be filing a form 477 too? What makes their facilities any less important than my facilities? If I operate a hotspot-style network, do I become exempt for CALEA? I'd like to see Starbucks, McDonalds, Krystals, Dennys be forced to install CALEA equipment... Yeah right. I ought to just operate a totally anonymous prepaid hotspot network and then I won't worry about subpoenas because I have no information. I just don't understand this, in one breath the government says "The US is behind the rest of the world in broadband growth" and in the next breath they say "Buy this super-expensive equipment in order to operate". Next, they drag around with 3650, make it NOT usable with current 3.5 equipment that's TDD/FDD. They offer USF to telcos but not us to expand into rural areas. I'm starting to think they don't want us little guys around. We've got broken equipment on towers we don't have money to replace. Now they want us to buy something that will be used on less than 75 customers that are all legitimate businesses anyways. This is ridiculous. - Original Message - From: "S.Y.W.S.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th > What is the form number of this now?. > > Their site doesn't really help with the key word search. > > What if you already told the FCC back in Feb you were not going to be > compliant > by March ??, and they already talked to you about it? > > "We have your information, if anything comes up with your service we have > your contact > information." > > I told them there was no way I could afford, the software, hardware of TTP > service. I also > told them I would have to have them provide financial aid if it was ever > required I be compliant > as per their own section for subsidizing the costs. > > Also the way I understand it, if you have good customers. We have only > received a court order > once for emails relating to one user in 12 years. Simple live forward worked > great. They received > a copy of every email they sent and received. Might not have much to worry > about anyway. > > We cut their access after it was done. > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Cc: ; > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:32 PM > Subject: [isp-wireless] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th > > > > Hi All, > > > > Sigh. More law enforcement fun due next week. > > > > As you all know by now, we had to file an FCC form 445 a couple of weeks > > ago. That was a form telling the FCC how we're doing at becoming CALEA > > compliant. Now we have to tell them what our policies will be when we're > > hit with a CALEA action. That's what Monday's filing is all about. > > > > WISPA has worked on this issue with telecom attorney Kris Twomey. He's > > worked with us WISPs for a long time and ran a plan past the WISPA board > > for SSI procedures. We're recommending Kris' handbook as either your > > policy or a starting point for one of your own. > > > > If you want Kris to help you you'll have to send him the following > > information: > > Full company info. > > example: > > Marlon K. Schafer dBa Odessa Office Equipment > > box 489 > > 107 S. 1st Street > > Odessa Wa. 99159 > > (509) 982-2181 > > > > Primary contact: > > Marlon K. Schafer > > office line > > cell phone > > pager > > > > Alternate contact: > > > > Hours available: > > 24/7 as cell phone coverage allows > > > > Etc. > > > > Kris has worked out a great platform for this. The cost to have him file > > for you is $250. If you are a WISPA member it's $100. You'll have until > > March 12 to join > > WISPA and get the WISPA rate... > > > > Here's Kris' explanation of what this is and his contact info. Please > > direct questions directly to Kris as I don't know enough about this to > > answer any :-) > > > > First a little background. About a year ago, the FCC required all > > facilities-based broadband and VoIP providers to ensure that they are > > "CALEA compliant" by May 14, 2007. CALEA stands for Communic
RE: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
>> Wrong perspective. They are trying to look "friendly" to consumers, not to us. We're just the purse to pick. Fair point, I suspect it is more of "lets see if can get away with this without anyone coming after us" after all they are supposed to be looking after the public. >>>I can survive AT&T merging with Bellsouth. >>>I can survive and, in fact, flourish, in the face of behemoth telcos. >>>I can't survive artificially fixed prices below my cost. >>>In the instance above, I know which would hurt me and which would not. I don't know if you realize this, but you made very powerful statements when you began each of the above with an "I". Let me re-phrase... I, as a business owner, can survive any and all of the above, however the fact that "We" as in "ISP's" an industry , defined as, Un-regulated business entities providing Internet Access Connectivity Bandwidth, (primarily arbitrage), are going to be history in the very near future. (Before you start to flame me as a naysayer. Just stop for a moment, and reflect, we as an un-regulated entities are going to be no more, we are going to have to transform into a fully regulated entity or get out of the last mile access business. So far the 'fight has been on the wireline turf, but don't forget the wireless fight is coming next. Some of you might say, hey we are okay cause we are not in the Metro Area, that may be true or may be not. A lot of you depend upon 1st Tier providers of different services who in term depend upon the Metro Area for their survival...i.e. we are all part of a chain -:)) >>>I'm not really understanding why you think the ISP's are particularly hurt by a merger. Could you explain? This may by a long topic to explain in an email, but lets just say that when your wholesale costs are running more than the consumer retail costs, and your 'inter-connect' providers are the sole decision makers on if they choose to provide you access or not ! Things will look a whole lot different. Anyone who is operating as an ISP, in Metro Area, in the wireline world, will be able to explain things in much more detail. I would also like to point out that with the recent mergers, most of us might not realize that the bulk of US Internet Network 60-75% is now under the direct control of these two entities (ATT & Verizon). .. If you want to get a first hand preview of this, talk to any of the Cellular folks, and ask them as to what they have to do to get T1 or higher bandwidth circuits from the ILEC to their Towerswhen they are in a competitors territory.. >>>Build your network to be competitive NO MATTER WHAT anyone else does. Fair statement for the current times, however not sure if that is all of what will be needed when looking into the future. No one can predict, but all the signs of on-coming storm, (regulations, restrictions, and much tougher operating environment) seem to be pretty real. That is all for the depressing stuff:- Now for the, ok, so what do we do now ! Re-evaluate business, start thinking Outside the Box. Reduce your ROI formula, 3-5year payback is no longer acceptable, 6m to 18month is more the appropriate range. Build like Hell, and build up the Cash Flow. If it does not help increase the Business Cash Flow, don't do it ! Be ready for a 2nd round of struggles, both with energy and cash. Work together in a much more collaborative mode more than ever. (If two isp's spend $ on buying the same resources individually, then they both loose, vs. buying it once, sharing the resource, and pocketing the savings !). And again Re-evaluate .. I am sure you can all add more to the list. -:) Faisal Imtiaz SnappyDSL.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wispa Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:30:27 -0500, Faisal Imtiaz wrote > I have a very tough time trying to figure out who is 'friendly' & > 'Sympathetic' to the cause of the ISP's at the FCC. Wrong perspective. They are trying to look "friendly" to consumers, not to us. We're just the purse to pick. > > After watching the 'process' and 'negotiations' which resulted in the > approval of AT&T purchase of BellSouth, I cannot tell who did more 'damage' > to the ISP's , the Republican Commissioners for un-bashfully > supporting THE ILEC's agenda or the Democrat Commissioners who > insisted that the ILEC offer very low cost DSL Service / Naked DSL > service at a very low cost only to the consumers for at least a 2 year > period ! I can survive AT&T merging with Bellsouth. I can survive and, in fact, flourish, in the face of behemoth telcos. I can't survive artificially fixed prices below my cost. In the instance above, I know which would hurt me and which would not. > > > > My take so far is that the Republican Commissioners are hell bent on >
Re: [WISPA] Vonage to pay Verizon $58 million
Your Opinion of Today's Vonage Patent Judgment? * Verizon=Patent Trolls. Vonage shouldn't have to pay them anything * Vonage should pay less, and have that apply as licensing fee * $58 million is about fair * Vonage should pay more * Verdicts such as these point to crying need for patent reform * Abolish most patents and go to licensing/royalty model * Some other opinion *** On 3/8/07, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1470 -- 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] tv whitespaces filings
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:32:02 -0800, Alan Cain wrote > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Over time, I have attempted to respond to a number of things, and I NEVER find the page to do so. The FCC has one of the most obscure organizational methods I have ever run into. I remember having to follow someone else's link every time. They do listen... I found some things I said quoted near verbatim in the R&O on 3650. maybe permanent links on the WISPA homepage for each filing would be good. > > Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or > > so!! > > > > > > I don't have a cute secretary like Mary, Marlon. > **200738030387** > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:30:27 -0500, Faisal Imtiaz wrote > I have a very tough time trying to figure out who is 'friendly' & > 'Sympathetic' to the cause of the ISP's at the FCC. Wrong perspective. They are trying to look "friendly" to consumers, not to us. We're just the purse to pick. > > After watching the 'process' and 'negotiations' which resulted in the > approval of AT&T purchase of BellSouth, I cannot tell who did more 'damage' > to the ISP's , the Republican Commissioners for un-bashfully > supporting THE ILEC's agenda or the Democrat Commissioners who > insisted that the ILEC offer very low cost DSL Service / Naked DSL > service at a very low cost only to the consumers for at least a 2 > year period ! I can survive AT&T merging with Bellsouth. I can survive and, in fact, flourish, in the face of behemoth telcos. I can't survive artificially fixed prices below my cost. In the instance above, I know which would hurt me and which would not. > > > > My take so far is that the Republican Commissioners are hell bent on > 'shooting' the ISP's and the Democrat Commissioners are following > behind to make sure that the ISP Coffins are double nailed shut, > just incase the ISP's reincarnate. I'm not really understanding why you think the ISP's are particularly hurt by a merger. Could you explain? > > Yes, very scary ! Very very scary !. > > Watching these guys operate, it is getting harder and harder to believe > their line "ah, we did not have any intentions to hurt you in the > process, we were just trying to fix things". Heh, well... I had to bring up the R word, but Limbaugh says that "any government fix is never a solution, just the creation of new problems". I tend to agree, since we rarely anticipate the reactions to restrictions, taxes, or legislation. Build your network to be competitive NO MATTER WHAT anyone else does. Stay out of debt, treat your customers like the are the lifeblood they are, and you'll do ok. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! I don't have a cute secretary like Mary, Marlon. **200738030387** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
Maybe it's time to file to be a "library" or school... I'm not an ISP - I'm an informational internet research service providing services to students who are enrolled in our access program. Ridiculous... this is all ridiculous. - Original Message - From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi > For about 20% of my users, that is all I can do packets from/to my > MESH based towers I can't break down to individual users. Some of > them can't even be broken down to individual towers... > > Doug Ratcliffe wrote: > > I agree. I see it this way too. I can't see them forcing CALEA onto > > hotspot operators like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. Technically they're a > > WISP too. I'll operate my service just like they do. What about muni-WIFI? > > How does CALEA play into that? > > > > If this goes the wrong way, I'm going to convert all of my customers to > > prepaid hotspot users, anonymous (nothing but a card #). You take the > > equipment, install it where you want and the most I'm going to know is that > > it's on Tower B, Sector 3 and they have a 77% signal. > > > > Go find them. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote > >> > >>> Mark and Butch, > >>> > >>> I want to thank both of you. > >>> > >>> I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a > >>> negative turn but I WAS WRONG. > >>> > >>> I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications > >>> to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. > >>> I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment > >>> and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum. > >>> > >>> Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my > >>> mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well. > >>> > >>> Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each > >>> other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule > >>> of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct. > >>> > >>> Thank you again. > >>> jack > >>> > >> Thanks Jack. Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant. > >> > >> The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're > >> telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ > >> and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the > >> > > funds > > > >> to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our > >> Constitution. > >> > >> In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find > >> > > ways > > > >> it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go > >> through to attempt to recover the data they want. > >> > >> Just like CALEA did for the telcos, they can fund the software changes > >> > > and > > > >> implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how > >> > > best > > > >> to get ahold of data tehy want or need. > >> > >> In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure requirements > >> and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain. > >> > >> Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund > >> > > that > > > >> research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed to > >> freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how to > >> deliver data. > >> > >> Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop > >> reasonable mechanisms... but it should be them asking US, not us coming > >> around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for some > >> arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our networks" with a > >> > > big > > > >> hairy fine as a stick big enough to bury small guys like me. One single > >> > > 10K > > > >> fine and i'm bankrupt. And the rules offer no recourse. Doesn't actually > >> MATTER if you think you comply. If it doesn't work in the end like they > >> want, the fine can be levied anyway and capriciously. This is wrong > >> > > too... > > > >> Vague laws are unconstituional, we all know that. > >> > >> But most of all, it needs to be voted in Congress. Let Congress take the > >> heat like they should, when they have to vote to spy on your internet > >> > > use - > > > >> and require everyone to be "ready". > >> > >> This whole thing is a tragedy of spineless beaurocrats. Congress wrote a > >> law, the law was obsolete in a very short period of time, but rather than > >> > > get > > > >> Congress to fix its own mess, the DOJ and FBI and FCC are attempting to > >> misapply a law, and since they cannot spen
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
For about 20% of my users, that is all I can do packets from/to my MESH based towers I can't break down to individual users. Some of them can't even be broken down to individual towers... Doug Ratcliffe wrote: I agree. I see it this way too. I can't see them forcing CALEA onto hotspot operators like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. Technically they're a WISP too. I'll operate my service just like they do. What about muni-WIFI? How does CALEA play into that? If this goes the wrong way, I'm going to convert all of my customers to prepaid hotspot users, anonymous (nothing but a card #). You take the equipment, install it where you want and the most I'm going to know is that it's on Tower B, Sector 3 and they have a 77% signal. Go find them. - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote Mark and Butch, I want to thank both of you. I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a negative turn but I WAS WRONG. I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum. Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well. Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct. Thank you again. jack Thanks Jack. Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant. The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the funds to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our Constitution. In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find ways it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go through to attempt to recover the data they want. Just like CALEA did for the telcos, they can fund the software changes and implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how best to get ahold of data tehy want or need. In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure requirements and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain. Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund that research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed to freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how to deliver data. Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop reasonable mechanisms... but it should be them asking US, not us coming around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for some arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our networks" with a big hairy fine as a stick big enough to bury small guys like me. One single 10K fine and i'm bankrupt. And the rules offer no recourse. Doesn't actually MATTER if you think you comply. If it doesn't work in the end like they want, the fine can be levied anyway and capriciously. This is wrong too... Vague laws are unconstituional, we all know that. But most of all, it needs to be voted in Congress. Let Congress take the heat like they should, when they have to vote to spy on your internet use - and require everyone to be "ready". This whole thing is a tragedy of spineless beaurocrats. Congress wrote a law, the law was obsolete in a very short period of time, but rather than get Congress to fix its own mess, the DOJ and FBI and FCC are attempting to misapply a law, and since they cannot spend federal money without Congress voting it for them, they're attempting to dump the cost on us. The DOJ rather than face Congress and public opinion, sought to get a shortcut from the FCC, who rather than demand it be done right, simply sidestepped and dumped the responsibility to object UPON US, by writing patently wrong rules that deserve to lose instantly if legally challenged, so THEY didn't have to argue. And we, ( Yeah, I consider myself guilty ) did not object. Heck, we DIDNT EVEN KNOW BECAUSE WE WERE NOT LOOKING. This is wrong on so many levels, it reeks. What's worse, is that it CAN lose in court, it can be challenged and beaten in court, and if that happens, then literally, the FBI And DOJ are without the legal tools they probably ought to have. I k
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
I agree. I see it this way too. I can't see them forcing CALEA onto hotspot operators like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. Technically they're a WISP too. I'll operate my service just like they do. What about muni-WIFI? How does CALEA play into that? If this goes the wrong way, I'm going to convert all of my customers to prepaid hotspot users, anonymous (nothing but a card #). You take the equipment, install it where you want and the most I'm going to know is that it's on Tower B, Sector 3 and they have a 77% signal. Go find them. - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote > > Mark and Butch, > > > > I want to thank both of you. > > > > I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a > > negative turn but I WAS WRONG. > > > > I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications > > to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. > > I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment > > and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum. > > > > Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my > > mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well. > > > > Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each > > other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule > > of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct. > > > > Thank you again. > > jack > > Thanks Jack. Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant. > > The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're > telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ > and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the funds > to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our > Constitution. > > In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find ways > it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go > through to attempt to recover the data they want. > > Just like CALEA did for the telcos, they can fund the software changes and > implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how best > to get ahold of data tehy want or need. > > In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure requirements > and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain. > > Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund that > research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed to > freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how to > deliver data. > > Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop > reasonable mechanisms... but it should be them asking US, not us coming > around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for some > arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our networks" with a big > hairy fine as a stick big enough to bury small guys like me. One single 10K > fine and i'm bankrupt. And the rules offer no recourse. Doesn't actually > MATTER if you think you comply. If it doesn't work in the end like they > want, the fine can be levied anyway and capriciously. This is wrong too... > Vague laws are unconstituional, we all know that. > > But most of all, it needs to be voted in Congress. Let Congress take the > heat like they should, when they have to vote to spy on your internet use - > and require everyone to be "ready". > > This whole thing is a tragedy of spineless beaurocrats. Congress wrote a > law, the law was obsolete in a very short period of time, but rather than get > Congress to fix its own mess, the DOJ and FBI and FCC are attempting to > misapply a law, and since they cannot spend federal money without Congress > voting it for them, they're attempting to dump the cost on us. The DOJ > rather than face Congress and public opinion, sought to get a shortcut from > the FCC, who rather than demand it be done right, simply sidestepped and > dumped the responsibility to object UPON US, by writing patently wrong rules > that deserve to lose instantly if legally challenged, so THEY didn't have to > argue. And we, ( Yeah, I consider myself guilty ) did not object. Heck, we > DIDNT EVEN KNOW BECAUSE WE WERE NOT LOOKING. > > This is wrong on so many levels, it reeks. What's worse, is that it CAN lose > in court, it can be challenged and beaten in court, and if that happens, then > literally, the FBI And DOJ are without the legal tools they probably ought to > have. > > I know, this isn't supposed to be a political list...and I'm not being > partisan here. We're businessmen second, after we're citizens. We SHOULD > object when stuff is done wrong. Why do you think Congress appropriated > money fo
[WISPA] Vonage to pay Verizon $58 million
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1470 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
I have a very tough time trying to figure out who is 'friendly' & 'Sympathetic' to the cause of the ISP's at the FCC. After watching the 'process' and 'negotiations' which resulted in the approval of AT&T purchase of BellSouth, I cannot tell who did more 'damage' to the ISP's , the Republican Commissioners for un-bashfully supporting THE ILEC's agenda or the Democrat Commissioners who insisted that the ILEC offer very low cost DSL Service / Naked DSL service at a very low cost only to the consumers for at least a 2 year period ! > My take so far is that the Republican Commissioners are hell bent on 'shooting' the ISP's and the Democrat Commissioners are following behind to make sure that the ISP Coffins are double nailed shut, just incase the ISP's reincarnate. Yes, very scary ! Very very scary !. Watching these guys operate, it is getting harder and harder to believe their line "ah, we did not have any intentions to hurt you in the process, we were just trying to fix things". Faisal Imtiaz SnappyDSL.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband This is scary: Also Tuesday, Adelstein urged the FCC to adopt network neutrality rules designed to prevent broadband providers from potentially blocking or degrading competing content on their high-speed pipes. -- Obviously people don't realize that WISPs, unlike conventional ILEC based DSL and others with peering agreements, have to PAY for bandwidth and just don't get it by peering. - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband > > > http://njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NZEO1173296524287.html > > > > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > FCC License # PG-12-25133 > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > 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: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 > > -- 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] calea meeting with the fbi
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote > Mark and Butch, > > I want to thank both of you. > > I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a > negative turn but I WAS WRONG. > > I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications > to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. > I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment > and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum. > > Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my > mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well. > > Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each > other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule > of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct. > > Thank you again. > jack Thanks Jack. Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant. The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the funds to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our Constitution. In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find ways it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go through to attempt to recover the data they want. Just like CALEA did for the telcos, they can fund the software changes and implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how best to get ahold of data tehy want or need. In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure requirements and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain. Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund that research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed to freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how to deliver data. Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop reasonable mechanisms... but it should be them asking US, not us coming around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for some arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our networks" with a big hairy fine as a stick big enough to bury small guys like me. One single 10K fine and i'm bankrupt. And the rules offer no recourse. Doesn't actually MATTER if you think you comply. If it doesn't work in the end like they want, the fine can be levied anyway and capriciously. This is wrong too... Vague laws are unconstituional, we all know that. But most of all, it needs to be voted in Congress. Let Congress take the heat like they should, when they have to vote to spy on your internet use - and require everyone to be "ready". This whole thing is a tragedy of spineless beaurocrats. Congress wrote a law, the law was obsolete in a very short period of time, but rather than get Congress to fix its own mess, the DOJ and FBI and FCC are attempting to misapply a law, and since they cannot spend federal money without Congress voting it for them, they're attempting to dump the cost on us. The DOJ rather than face Congress and public opinion, sought to get a shortcut from the FCC, who rather than demand it be done right, simply sidestepped and dumped the responsibility to object UPON US, by writing patently wrong rules that deserve to lose instantly if legally challenged, so THEY didn't have to argue. And we, ( Yeah, I consider myself guilty ) did not object. Heck, we DIDNT EVEN KNOW BECAUSE WE WERE NOT LOOKING. This is wrong on so many levels, it reeks. What's worse, is that it CAN lose in court, it can be challenged and beaten in court, and if that happens, then literally, the FBI And DOJ are without the legal tools they probably ought to have. I know, this isn't supposed to be a political list...and I'm not being partisan here. We're businessmen second, after we're citizens. We SHOULD object when stuff is done wrong. Why do you think Congress appropriated money for CALEA in the first place? Because no way could they have gotten away with NOT doing it. It's our ( collectively... including me ) fault for not objecting long ago... But if we don't, we have done ourselves a disservice. We've done our country AND OURSELVES a disservice by letting bad law, bad precedent, bad policy be implemented that will eventually have bad results, probably for all involved. If we don't object, if we don't stand up and make it be done right, we'll simply find more of the same piled on top of CALEA. And we'll have set the precedent that it's perfectly fine and we'll cooperate. IT WILL BE TOO LATE to set things right without a HUGE fight. We need the public on our side. We need to get with the various legal groups who exist to help stop this kind of abuse. We
Re: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
This is scary: Also Tuesday, Adelstein urged the FCC to adopt network neutrality rules designed to prevent broadband providers from potentially blocking or degrading competing content on their high-speed pipes. -- Obviously people don't realize that WISPs, unlike conventional ILEC based DSL and others with peering agreements, have to PAY for bandwidth and just don't get it by peering. - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband > > > http://njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NZEO1173296524287.html > > > > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > FCC License # PG-12-25133 > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > 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: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] More CALEA deadlines. Monday March 12th
Hi All,
Sigh. More law enforcement fun due next week.
As you all know by now, we had to file an FCC form 445 a couple of weeks
ago. That was a form telling the FCC how we're doing at becoming CALEA
compliant. Now we have to tell them what our policies will be when we're
hit with a CALEA action. That's what Monday's filing is all about.
WISPA has worked on this issue with telecom attorney Kris Twomey. He's
worked with us WISPs for a long time and ran a plan past the WISPA board for
SSI procedures. We're recommending Kris' handbook as either your policy or
a starting point for one of your own.
If you want Kris to help you you'll have to send him the following
information:
Full company info.
example:
Marlon K. Schafer dBa Odessa Office Equipment
box 489
107 S. 1st Street
Odessa Wa. 99159
(509) 982-2181
Primary contact:
Marlon K. Schafer
office line
cell phone
pager
Alternate contact:
Hours available:
24/7 as cell phone coverage allows
Etc.
Kris has worked out a great platform for this. The cost to have him file
for you is $250. If you are a WISPA member it's $100. You'll have until
March 12 to join
WISPA and get the WISPA rate...
Here's Kris' explanation of what this is and his contact info. Please
direct questions directly to Kris as I don't know enough about this to
answer any :-)
First a little background. About a year ago, the FCC required all
facilities-based broadband and VoIP providers to ensure that they are
"CALEA compliant" by May 14, 2007. CALEA stands for Communications for
Law Enforcement Act, and previously only applied to telecommunications
carriers selling traditional voice services. The FCC and FBI are
worried about the ability of bad guys and terrorists to use advanced
communications methods to avoid detection, resulting in this expansion
of CALEA.
There has been much discussion as to which companies are caught in this
requirement. WISPs are considered facilities-based providers because
WISPs build, manage, and control infrastructure used to provide
broadband to consumers. This is distinct from traditional ISPs that
purchase DSL transport from their local ILEC and sell DSL. Those ISPs
are not covered by CALEA, instead, their ILEC is responsible for
maintaining CALEA-compliant equipment. WISPs, however, are indeed
required to become CALEA compliant. WISPA and several vendors are
pursuing technical solutions for the WISP industry to adopt that will
meet this CALEA requirement.
In the meantime, the FCC established interim deadlines as part of the
CALEA compliance verification process. By February 12, 2007, all WISPs
should have filed a FCC Form 445 to alert the FCC as to the progress of
upgrading equipment to be CALEA compliant. By March 12, 2007, all WISPs
must file a "System Security and Integrity" Plan. The SSI Plan sets out
the policies and procedures that WISPs agree to follow when receiving
either a CALEA or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") traffic
interception request from a law enforcement agency. The SSI also
identifies the employees of the WISP to whom a law enforcement agency
should contact with an interception request. The SSI that I drafted will
provide the FCC with proof that the filer has CALEA procedures in place.
It can also be used as a "best practices guide" for how WISPs should
handle requests from law enforcement agencies, paperwork requirements,
and record storage retention. The FCC has authorized fines of $10,000
per day for non-compliance, so this isn't just an annoying FCC request
that can be ignored.
As counsel to WISPA, I have created a template SSI Plan that satisfies
FCC requirements for WISPs. I am offering to file the SSI Plans for
WISPA members for the discounted fee of $100 each. Non-WISPA members may
also take advantage of a reasonable rate for filing of $250; only active
WISPA members get the discounted rate. I heard from one (new) client
that a large law firm quoted them a price of $7500 to make the filing. I
think that's unreasonable, borderline unethical, and is an example of
the type of business practice that led me to start my own firm five
years ago. Please feel free to pass this information along to anybody
that might be interested.
Kris
__
Kristopher E. Twomey
Telecom/Internet Law and Regulatory Consulting
www.lokt.net
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/
[WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband
http://njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NZEO1173296524287.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting 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] Mikrotik long pings
Do a reset on the radio, reconfigure with IP only on Ethernet, see if you get the same thing, if so, issues with cat5... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:20 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik long pings We just put up a mikrotik 532 with an sr2 card. This is an AP with the ethernet and sr2 bridged. At the bottom of the tower is actual mikrotik router doing routing, dhcp, etc. I have customers associated to the Ap which works fine. If I plug into the ethernet at the bottom of the Ap I get weird pings. What I mean is this: If I ping a customer whos is associated via wireless they are 4-10ms average. If I ping the AP itself pings will jump up to 400ms dependent on how much traffic is going through. When the ap goes to 400ms pings the customers stay the same (4-10ms). Any ideas why this is happening? It does not matter where I bind the ip on the Ap. Pings are still weird.I am not too worried because customers are getting their speed and their pings are great. Thanks in advance, Justin -- "Life is unfair, but root password Helps" --- Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CCNA - A+ - CCNT - TAT - ACSA - COMTRAIN MTIN.NET Wireless - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing AOLIM: j2sw WEB: http://www.mtin.net Phone: 765.762.2851 -- 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] canopy 900
Hi All, Had a customer call and ask some questions about canopy 900. I've not used it and I'm not in his market. So I'll pass along the questions How high above the trees are you having to mount it? How far into the trees can you go? Can you get 1 mile, two, three He's in an area with a lot of interference and lots of trees. Thanks, 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] calea meeting with the fbi
Mark and Butch, I want to thank both of you. I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a negative turn but I WAS WRONG. I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum. Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well. Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct. Thank you again. jack wispa wrote: On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:22:57 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is. Yes, the law is what it is. It was NEVER written to apply to ISP's nor internet services. Those are additions to the law that the FCC tacked on at a whim. The FCC has no authority to write law, only Congress can do that. This is why the FCC now holds contradictory views on whether an ISP is an "information service" or a "telecommunications service". Depending on the issues, like taxes vs CALEA, we are, or we are NOT a "telecommunications service". Understand? We are and we are not, all at the same time, so that it's convenient to require CALEA, but they can exempt us from other regulations, because we're not. THIS WILL BE RESOLVED, and not likely in our favor unless we begin arguing back! You will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, you are intent on NOT following it Actually, I am following the law, it's the FCC that playing games here, attempting to cross a chasm in two leaps. This is why I keep saying we MUST object. I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only purchase one more CPEHope you charge enough at install time to get the next one. You don't need to worry about my business issues, Butch. Trust me, we're in very sold shape. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office "more grief...than they can handle"? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. Yeah, you missed a lot, Butch. Like how fast the FCC is buried just by "frivolous applications for 3650 STA's...??? Remember Patrick's comments... understaffed, underbudgeted.. know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for it). You'd not like me in politics. I'm always this defensive of principle and always this blunt. I suggest you pass this on to the F
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:22:57 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: > > >While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please > >consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are > >deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what > >they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set > >a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept > >it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant > >standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in > >the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it > >won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You > >will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not > >choose this in ANY way. > > Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is. Yes, the law is what it is. It was NEVER written to apply to ISP's nor internet services. Those are additions to the law that the FCC tacked on at a whim. The FCC has no authority to write law, only Congress can do that. This is why the FCC now holds contradictory views on whether an ISP is an "information service" or a "telecommunications service". Depending on the issues, like taxes vs CALEA, we are, or we are NOT a "telecommunications service". Understand? We are and we are not, all at the same time, so that it's convenient to require CALEA, but they can exempt us from other regulations, because we're not. THIS WILL BE RESOLVED, and not likely in our favor unless we begin arguing back! You > will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to > follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. > Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. > I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, > you are intent on NOT following it Actually, I am following the law, it's the FCC that playing games here, attempting to cross a chasm in two leaps. This is why I keep saying we MUST object. > > >I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. > >However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I > >have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I > >cannot and will not comply, period. > > Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only > purchase one more CPEHope you charge enough at install time to > get the next one. You don't need to worry about my business issues, Butch. Trust me, we're in very sold shape. > > >If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do > >so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, > >local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take > >over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's > >no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct > >all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be > >no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in > >irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I > > Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your > (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office "more grief...than > they can handle"? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something > isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. Yeah, you missed a lot, Butch. Like how fast the FCC is buried just by "frivolous applications for 3650 STA's...??? Remember Patrick's comments... understaffed, underbudgeted.. > > >know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be > >activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they > > Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems > to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides > stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws > established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you > don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would > be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for > it). You'd not like me in politics. I'm always this defensive of principle and always this blunt. > > >I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my > >estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly > >the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without > >the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it > > And just who is doing the "feeding", Mark? Marlon? The FCC? > WISPA? One must sit back and ask himself, who stuck our collective heads up in front of the regulators, asked for stuff, and then never even said "boo" when the FCC started making capricious rulings? > > >and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint > >efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a > >right to get. All possibly being wiped out b
[WISPA] email archiving
Hi Frank, I see that Postini has some new mail archiving service available and a webcast to talk about new government regs on the subject. Can you give me us an idea what that's all about and what the costs are? thanks! 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/
[WISPA] Mikrotik long pings
We just put up a mikrotik 532 with an sr2 card. This is an AP with the ethernet and sr2 bridged. At the bottom of the tower is actual mikrotik router doing routing, dhcp, etc. I have customers associated to the Ap which works fine. If I plug into the ethernet at the bottom of the Ap I get weird pings. What I mean is this: If I ping a customer whos is associated via wireless they are 4-10ms average. If I ping the AP itself pings will jump up to 400ms dependent on how much traffic is going through. When the ap goes to 400ms pings the customers stay the same (4-10ms). Any ideas why this is happening? It does not matter where I bind the ip on the Ap. Pings are still weird.I am not too worried because customers are getting their speed and their pings are great. Thanks in advance, Justin -- "Life is unfair, but root password Helps" --- Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CCNA - A+ - CCNT - TAT - ACSA - COMTRAIN MTIN.NET Wireless - WISP Consulting - Tower Climbing AOLIM: j2sw WEB: http://www.mtin.net Phone: 765.762.2851 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
Persoanlly, I still do not understand the uproar. I do not see where there are any signficant costs in complying to Calea for most WISPs. The Lobby effort, to make a couple trips to the FBI, costs more than it does to implement compliance in many cases. The only issue with CALEA is to make sure they continue to support Linux based formats, as already proposed, so we just have to add a few lines of code, and not convert our entire network to CISCO :-) Calea is not about compliance, thats a given, its about understanding what is compliance, s owe know what to do. Its just like OSHA, its easy to comply, where the primary goal is to make the company aware, and document their awareness, to do the things they already should be doing anyway. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:07 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi Great solution Marty. Really. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:01 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi ..."How about we pass on the cost to our customers with a CALEA surcharge- Send a message out to the customers that we HAVE to charge you xx per month to support the govt efforts to wiretap the masses or to support the Govt efforts to keep us safe from perverts and terrorist..." Marty __ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(84). 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] Was CALEA, WAY off topic video and commentary.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: Besides, CALEA never applied to ISP's anyway, so ruled the FCC, before it did a double take and now tries to hold two conflicting positions before regulators, concerning ISP's. We are, or are not, depending on the issue, a regulated industry now, with nary a logical justification for this obviously inconsistent ruling. I'd suggest that you read exactly what CALEA is. You obviously don't understand it completely if this is your best argument. -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is. You will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, you are intent on NOT following it I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only purchase one more CPEHope you charge enough at install time to get the next one. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office "more grief...than they can handle"? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for it). I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it And just who is doing the "feeding", Mark? Marlon? The FCC? WISPA? and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? WISPA's just bleating and going along like blind sheep. Mark...You are speaking of things you haven't a clue about. What makes you thing WISPA is "bleating and going along like blind sheep"? The fact that we (I'm working with them to help create the standards) are trying to create a standard to provide LEAs with information that they need? Is that what it is? I'm confused...someone is feeding you to the wolves and WISPA is a group of sheep. Perhaps you can clear this up for me. I STILL cannot believe we're walking into this without a single official objection from WISPA or the other organizations supposedly on "our" side. I guess I should not be surprised. Expedience has become the religion of our times. Like rolling over and playing dead is going to earn us brownie points and favors later? Don't count on it. Objection to WHAT? You aren't making ANY sense! Will I help law enforcement track down and prosecute people who are breaking the law or otherwise a threat? No question at all, of COURSE I WILL. I will NOT pre-tap thier connection in any way that Now who is talking out of both sides of his mouth? "of COURSE I WILL"? You said earlier that you will NOT comply. Now I don't know if I agree with you or not. Perhaps your real calling IS as a politician...(just something to think about, with your support of "millions"). compromises my security or their security, costs me significantly, or is in my view, unconstitutional (which is pretty much anyting done ahead of time). That, as a citizen, is my duty. If that costs me my future
