[WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Smith
Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ?

I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
discussion at the FBI...

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] re: tower climbing (Travis Johnson)

2007-03-12 Thread Justin Wilson
Looks like the construction crew had a Homer moment. About the only thing I
would suggest is showing the tower owner this photo and seeing if they can
do anything.  I would get you some re-bar hooks to help you slide across the
beams. 

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] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

2007-03-12 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-)

Tim Wolfe wrote:

I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me.



JohnnyO wrote:

How far away are you from that location ?

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do 
you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL! 
:-$



JohnnyO wrote:
 

It's a great area sir !
JohnnyO

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


On
 

Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of a



 

PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??.




JohnnyO wrote:
 

Can Anyone service this location 
 
Link to a google map -   Location


  

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT
 
 

F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1  to be
serviced  
How about Saxton PA 
 
Regards,
 
JohnnyO

  


  




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

2007-03-12 Thread JohnnyO
LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe)

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-)

Tim Wolfe wrote:
 I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me.



 JohnnyO wrote:
 How far away are you from that location ?

 JohnnyO

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
 Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
 Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

 If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do 
 you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL!

 :-$


 JohnnyO wrote:
  
 It's a great area sir !
 JohnnyO

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 On
  
 Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
 Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

 Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of
a
 

  
 PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??.




 JohnnyO wrote:
  
 Can Anyone service this location 
  
 Link to a google map -   Location

   

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT
  
  
 F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1  to be
 serviced  
 How about Saxton PA 
  
 Regards,
  
 JohnnyO
 
   

   


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date:
3/11/2007 9:27 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

2007-03-12 Thread Dawn DiPietro

I have to admit not as often as I should. :-)


JohnnyO wrote:

LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe)

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-)

Tim Wolfe wrote:
  

I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me.



JohnnyO wrote:


How far away are you from that location ?

JohnnyO

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

On
  

Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do 
you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL!
  


  

:-$


JohnnyO wrote:
 
  

It's a great area sir !
JohnnyO

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



On
 
  

Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of


a
  


 
  

PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??.




JohnnyO wrote:
 


Can Anyone service this location 
 
Link to a google map -   Location


  
  

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT
  
 
  
 


F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1  to be
serviced  
How about Saxton PA 
 
Regards,
 
JohnnyO

  
  

  
  


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] re: tower climbing (Travis Johnson)

2007-03-12 Thread Mac Dearman
Travis,

  I know you don't own that tower, but I would haul up a piece of cable and
attach to the two legs so my cable grab would be affective. I have really
come to appreciate the safety-climbs in my old age :-)

I think everyone has named the problem correctly - - the tower supervisor
was taking a nap at the time that section was hauled up.


Mac Dearman


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Justin Wilson
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:33 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] re: tower climbing (Travis Johnson)

Looks like the construction crew had a Homer moment. About the only thing I
would suggest is showing the tower owner this photo and seeing if they can
do anything.  I would get you some re-bar hooks to help you slide across the
beams. 

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] CALEA

2007-03-12 Thread Peter R.
While doing some research this morning, I came across the name of the 
CALEA Consultant for the DOJ, FBI, and DEA. )I'm now trying to get a 
phone or email).


Any way, CALEA was brought up in the Brand-X case. Here's the summary of 
the brief FYI:


Law Enforcement advanced the theory that Internet access
service is a “telecommunications service,”or at least contains
a “telecommunications service”that implicates the CALEA
statute. CALEA could cover Internet access, Law Enforcement
reasoned, without triggering the full burden of other
regulatory mandates promulgated under Title II of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Title II”) because
the Commission could streamline those burdens using
several regulatory tools, including forbearance, rule waivers,
extensions of time, and self-certifications of compliance.
Although cable operators are generally not subject to Title
II, Law Enforcement remarked that CALEA already applies
expressly to cable operators, as well as electric utilities and
other utilities, to the extent those entities engage in
telecommunications services. Law Enforcement also stated its
belief that the Commission’s Cable Modem Declaratory
Ruling, which classifies Internet access as a pure information
service, suffers from statutory interpretation problems and
directly threatens CALEA. Moreover, Law Enforcement
explained that CALEA’s importance to national security
warrants special treatment of the statute in the Commission’s
pending broadband Internet access proceedings.

--


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] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Smith

I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

with currently one customer on it.

He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain
Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and
some time-outs.

I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5
devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection
just flaps like crazy because of the latency.  

Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a
hotspot on a rooftop)

But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the hotspot
with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his
other computers with a wifi card in it.

Things to look for / do ?

R



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Jack Unger

History? Did it ever work?

Distance? 100' from the POP?

The signals are too hot.

jack


Rick Smith wrote:

I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

with currently one customer on it.

He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain
Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and
some time-outs.

I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5
devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection
just flaps like crazy because of the latency.  


Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's a
hotspot on a rooftop)

But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the hotspot
with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his
other computers with a wifi card in it.

Things to look for / do ?

R





--
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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote
 Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to 
 provide ?
 
 I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
 discussion at the FBI...

There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for 
something or other.

As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program 
something to use it.  Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. 

http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html

Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here.  That's because 
CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC 
less than 12 months ago - May 2006.  

If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) 
equipment vendors to be compliant.   Technically, this requires all WISP 
equipment vendors to be compliant, too.  

That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all 
have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do 
any data routing or manipulation.   

SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the 
licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. 

Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot.  

Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry 
is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go 
back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws 
written for the telco.  The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the 
standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads 
conform to airline laws, or vice versa.  

The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that 
make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in 
clear and unmistakeable terms.

Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for 
a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, 
and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND 
MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse.  

At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT 
having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) 
everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing.

Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, 
and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat.  For almost no 
effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and 
you will NOT capture anything useful.  VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP 
call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll 
bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. 

Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which 
means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will 
be incomplete.  

CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's 
woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device 
tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous.  

unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do.  CALEA envisioned restoring 
the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper 
wires carrying sound across them in analog form.  CALEA was the response to 
switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed 
adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL 
phones had to comply.  Gee, they existed when CALEA was written.  

They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology 
light years away from what CALEA applies to as written.  It cannot be done 
without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's 
freedom to communicate, as well. 

We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our 
country to JUST SAY NO!.  It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of 
technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an 
impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. 


 
 -- 
 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] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Smith

yeah, 100' away from the pop.  across the street (dead side street, antenna
way up above car level)

This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the
first on the repeater...


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

History? Did it ever work?

Distance? 100' from the POP?

The signals are too hot.

jack


Rick Smith wrote:
 I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2
 
 with currently one customer on it.
 
 He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain
 Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and
 some time-outs.
 
 I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5
 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection
 just flaps like crazy because of the latency.  
 
 Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's
a
 hotspot on a rooftop)
 
 But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the
hotspot
 with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his
 other computers with a wifi card in it.
 
 Things to look for / do ?
 
 R
 
 
 

-- 
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/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread chuck

Doug,

I didn't notice anyone answering your question, though I might have missed it.

Alvarion offers a version of the VL AU that is limited to 25 
simultaneous associations. The Comnet price is under $2,000 iirc. It 
is license key upgradeable to the unlimited version if a particular 
sector grows beyond 25 users. It makes new sites/new sectors much 
more practical than it was when the only option was the unlimited 
version.


For what it's worth, if you need an Alvarion Comnet distributor, I 
couldn't be more happy working with ACC/Wireless Connections (general 
email contact is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and recommend them 
highly. I hope that helps.


In terms of your final question, you probably can't use this type of 
equipment on a live AM tower, but I don't see why a non-live tower 
would matter as long as you pay attention to grounding. However, I'm 
not an expert here...Mike Cowan, Bob Moldashell, etc. (amongst 
several others on this list) can give an authoritative answer if they 
notice the question. If they don't notice it, you might send them an 
email directly (if you don't have contact info, drop me a private 
note).


Chuck

PS: I've got no connection to any vendor other than as a customer.


At 3:25 PM -0500 3/10/07, Doug Ratcliffe wrote:

I'm sold.  Anyone wanna buy me some?  COMNET has nice pricing on CPE's, but
are there any discounts on the AU's?  There's so many parts it seems between
the blade chassis and that, I don't even know what parts that I'd need to
order.

Also, I was concerned with the blade chassis that 200' of LMR400 would be
too lossy to be useful - or does this have some kind of low frequency IF
signalling that's used on the cable itself?  Some equipment I've noticed
uses a much lower frequency up the tower that even LMR175 could be used.

Can I use this on an non-live, unipole, AM radio tower?

Thanks


--
---
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268 x108

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

A Psalm of Life, Longfellow

--
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 - how to reach Ken

2007-03-12 Thread Forbes Mercy
Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how to 
call him?
 
Forbes



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa
Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?



On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote
 Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to
 provide ?

 I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
 discussion at the FBI...

There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for
something or other.

As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program
something to use it.  Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE.

http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html

Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here.  That's because
CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC
less than 12 months ago - May 2006. 

If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching)
equipment vendors to be compliant.   Technically, this requires all WISP
equipment vendors to be compliant, too. 

That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all
have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do
any data routing or manipulation.  

SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the
licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it.

Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. 

Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry
is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go
back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws
written for the telco.  The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the
standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads
conform to airline laws, or vice versa. 

The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that
make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in
clear and unmistakeable terms.

Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for
a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision,
and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND
MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. 

At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT
having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry)
everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing.

Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT,
and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat.  For almost no
effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and
you will NOT capture anything useful.  VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP
call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll
bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today.

Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which
means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will
be incomplete. 

CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's
woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device
tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. 

unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do.  CALEA envisioned restoring
the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper
wires carrying sound across them in analog form.  CALEA was the response to
switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed
adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL
phones had to comply.  Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. 

They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology
light years away from what CALEA applies to as written.  It cannot be done
without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's
freedom to communicate, as well.

We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our
country to JUST SAY NO!.  It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of
technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an
impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting.



 --
 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/



winmail.dat-- 
WISPA Wireless List: 

RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Harnish
Ken who?  

 

Kris Twomey?  His email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Phone number can be found on his
website.  http://www.lokt.net/  

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

President

OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.

260-827-2482

Founding Member of WISPA

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Calea - how to reach Ken

 

Ken never called me back and here is one big deadline today, anyone know how
to call him?

 

Forbes

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of wispa
Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 10:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote
 Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to
 provide ?

 I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
 discussion at the FBI...

There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for
something or other.

As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program
something to use it.  Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE.

http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html

Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here.  That's because
CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC
less than 12 months ago - May 2006. 

If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching)
equipment vendors to be compliant.   Technically, this requires all WISP
equipment vendors to be compliant, too. 

That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all
have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do
any data routing or manipulation.  

SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the
licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it.

Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. 

Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry
is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go
back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws
written for the telco.  The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the
standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads
conform to airline laws, or vice versa. 

The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that
make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in
clear and unmistakeable terms.

Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members
for
a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision,
and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND
MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. 

At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely
NOT
having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry)
everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing.

Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is
NOT,
and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat.  For almost no
effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and
you will NOT capture anything useful.  VPN's can be encrypted and even a
VOIP
call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll
bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today.

Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which
means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will
be incomplete. 

CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's
woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device
tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. 

unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do.  CALEA envisioned restoring
the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper
wires carrying sound across them in analog form.  CALEA was the response to
switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed
adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL
phones had to comply.  Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. 

They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology
light years away from what CALEA applies to as written.  It cannot be done
without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's
freedom to communicate, as well.

We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our
country to JUST SAY NO!.  It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of
technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an
impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting.



 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

How did you get the thread then?

Lonnie

On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Im not on that list.
sorry,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison?  Thanks.

Patrick


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

I found this thread interesting.

Enjoy,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51
PM
Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about
Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them
from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some
use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.



Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c:
760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?

  No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used.
 Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God
 forbid!)

  How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would a SA
  show the channel width to be?

  Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will
 adjust automatically.

  What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without
  reflector, with?

  The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL
 to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5
 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your
 Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure
 produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector
 is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a
 reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10
 miles.

  Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist
  in the network development of Canopy products?

  There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of
 opportunity for direct consultation.

  Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing?

  In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include
 QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box
 (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)

  Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
  allocated, how true are those figures?  Is the allocation dynamic?  Can
  you mix breeds of SM on the AP?

  VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees,
 but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates
 (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a lower
 rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if you wish.
 All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector.

  Can an SM access the AP it's on for management?

  In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management access.

  Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic?

  Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set per
 subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears its
 limit.

  Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization?  Doesn't this limit the
  radio's ability to co-locate?

  The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be either
 H or V pol mounted. The AUs can be mounted either way (by way of antenna
 choice).

  Why is the latency so high for the APs (5-7ms)?

  N/A, but looking in terms of a specific application, the delay with the
 optional WLP (wireless link prioritization feature) feature is stable at
 4 or less ms.


  What is the maximum PPS per AP?

  Up to about 6 downstream and 48000 upstream.

  Are there any tools to prevent or reduce the impact from an end-user
  launching a DoS attack?

  Yes, the broadcast rate limiting feature was designed specifically
 because of this threat.

  How do the APs handle VoIP traffic?  Is there anything that can assist
  this?

  Better, literally, than any other AP in unlicensed, with up 288
 CONCURRENT VoIP calls per AP (we call them AUs) with a MOS of better than
 4.0. With the WLP feature implemented, MOS is typically over 4.1 and many
 tests show over 4.4. (I have some great VoIP graphs). We can also run tons
 of concurrent data. The graphs show this too.
  What is a realistic number of concurrent VoIP sessions an AP can handle?

  VL is the only product that can literally and dynamically prioritize VoIP
 over the entire pipe and across the entire sector (versus just dedicating
 a partition that must be allocated whether used or not). At the same time,
 VL has a starvation 

Re: [WISPA] tower climbing

2007-03-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
How about bringing up the safety issue to the tower company, and asking them 
to install more foot pegs :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing


Ya... that's what I was afraid of... I've done it twice, but both times I 
keep thinking there has to be a better way...


Travis
Microserv

Bob Moldashel wrote:
Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it.  You 
just gotta get balls of steel and slide over.  Down one cross member and 
up another. We do it all the time.


BTW:   Be careful...  :-)

-B-





Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a new 
tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed 
hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft without 
any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more difficult. I 
believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 legs. The issue is 
there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft level... then the 
pegs start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the top. Getting from 
one leg to another at the 80ft level is the challenge. As you can see 
from the picture, the gap from the top brace to the bottom brace is 
almost 10feet in the center (I am 6'1).


http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG

Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to leg 
movements across the braces?


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/ 


--
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

2007-03-12 Thread Dylan Oliver

Hi Peter,

I'd like to see the powerpoints!

Dylan Oliver
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
608-588-8010
PO Box 668

Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Peter R.
During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.


Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's 
and ISP's have ever done:

Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works.

You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
But this is not a one-way street.

To get you have to give.
You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys 
- without the bad guys knowing.


Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a 
poll or a form.


When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, 
he is almost accurate.

(It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry).

The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority.
But typically they can ruin it for the lot.

BTW, this from SS8's presentation at the VPF:

Other standards in common use in the U.S.:
J-STD-25A –Punchlist
J-STD-25B –CDMA2000 wireless data
PacketCable –VoIP for Cable networks
T1.678 –VoIP for wireline, PTT, PoC
ETSI 33.108 –GPRS wireless data
ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new)

Regards,

Peter


wispa wrote:


There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for

something or other.

As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program 
something to use it.  Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. 


http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html

Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here.  That's because 
CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC 
less than 12 months ago - May 2006.  



The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that 
make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in 
clear and unmistakeable terms.


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tower climbing

2007-03-12 Thread Travis Johnson
Ya... I already tried that... there are 4 cell carriers, another WISP 
and several paging companies on this tower (it's 180ft). Apparently 
nobody else has ever said anything about it...


The big problem is there are no foot peg attachments on the tower leg 
itself, so there really isn't a way to do it without a great deal of 
expense.


Travis


Tom DeReggi wrote:
How about bringing up the safety issue to the tower company, and 
asking them to install more foot pegs :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing


Ya... that's what I was afraid of... I've done it twice, but both 
times I keep thinking there has to be a better way...


Travis
Microserv

Bob Moldashel wrote:
Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it.  
You just gotta get balls of steel and slide over.  Down one cross 
member and up another. We do it all the time.


BTW:   Be careful...  :-)

-B-





Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a 
new tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have 
climbed hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 
120ft without any problems or fears. However this new tower is much 
more difficult. I believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower 
with 3 legs. The issue is there are only foot pegs on one leg up to 
the 80ft level... then the pegs start on another leg and go up from 
80ft to the top. Getting from one leg to another at the 80ft level 
is the challenge. As you can see from the picture, the gap from the 
top brace to the bottom brace is almost 10feet in the center (I am 
6'1).


http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG

Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg 
to leg movements across the braces?


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/ 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] CALEA Mikrotik

2007-03-12 Thread Peter R.

excellent thread:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=67031sid=100a5b7521057953a31a8ecf60bed196

--


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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote
 During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
 clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
 compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.

Oh, please.  The DOJ doesn't write law.  the DOJ wants EVERYTHING.  If it 
were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice 
transmission, and they've all but said so.  Too bad.  That's wrong, and 
that's the truth. 

 
 Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that 
 CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. 
 That's not how it works.

If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was 
wrong. 

 
 You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
 But this is not a one-way street.

I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's 
assigned duties?  Hell no!

 
 To get you have to give.
 You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
 You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad 
 guys - without the bad guys knowing.

Again, here we go again.  You make up stuff and then slam me for it.  I don't 
get it.  CALEA is not applicable law.  It is WRONG for the feds to require US 
to pay for what they want.  Period.  

Do you not get that?   That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to 
fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. 

Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no 
reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it.  They don't 
write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US!  The 
FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not.  

 
 Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill 
 out a poll or a form.

Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not.  

 
 When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking 
 chairs, he is almost accurate.
 (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry).
 
 The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority.
 But typically they can ruin it for the lot.

RUIN  Ruin what?  Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is 
going to buy us something?   Please.  That's being more gullible than the 
emperor's cheering squad. 

Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to 
have ANY interest in your future at all.  





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] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Sam Tetherow
Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of 
behavior in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels?


Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Rick Smith wrote:

yeah, 100' away from the pop.  across the street (dead side street, antenna
way up above car level)

This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the
first on the repeater...


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

History? Did it ever work?

Distance? 100' from the POP?

The signals are too hot.

jack


Rick Smith wrote:
  

I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

with currently one customer on it.

He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain
Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and
some time-outs.

I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5
devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection
just flaps like crazy because of the latency.  


Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's


a
  

hotspot on a rooftop)

But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the


hotspot
  

with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his
other computers with a wifi card in it.

Things to look for / do ?

R






  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Smith
yep, no matter which channel. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of behavior
in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels?

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Rick Smith wrote:
 yeah, 100' away from the pop.  across the street (dead side street, 
 antenna way up above car level)

 This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're 
 the first on the repeater...


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

 History? Did it ever work?

 Distance? 100' from the POP?

 The signals are too hot.

 jack


 Rick Smith wrote:
   
 I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

 with currently one customer on it.

 He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High 
 Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms 
 pings and some time-outs.

 I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 
 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network 
 connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency.

 Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected 
 (it's
 
 a
   
 hotspot on a rooftop)

 But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the
 
 hotspot
   
 with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of 
 his other computers with a wifi card in it.

 Things to look for / do ?

 R



 

   

--
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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Peter R.

wispa wrote:


On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote
 

During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.
   



Oh, please.  The DOJ doesn't write law.  the DOJ wants EVERYTHING.  If it 
were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice 
transmission, and they've all but said so.  Too bad.  That's wrong, and 
that's the truth. 
 


You don't think this rule came down from the Bush Admin to the FCC?

 

Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that 
CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. 
That's not how it works.
   



If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was 
wrong. 
 


This isn't knee-jerk. This is what I have found over the last 7 years.
You guys do complain loudly but do very little action.
It is left to the few to fight for the many.

 


You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
But this is not a one-way street.
   



I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's 
assigned duties?  Hell no!
 


Where in the constitution does it say anything about this???

Wiretap is law. Has been since 1934.

 


To get you have to give.
You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad 
guys - without the bad guys knowing.
   



Again, here we go again.  You make up stuff and then slam me for it.  I don't 
get it.  CALEA is not applicable law.  It is WRONG for the feds to require US 
to pay for what they want.  Period.  
 


You want to be a bank, you have a laundry list of regs you have to
implement.
You want to be a public company, bang 2 years ago SOX rules are applied
and now public companies spend billions to comply.
You want to be a healthcare provider, you better be HIPAA compliant at
your cost.


Do you not get that?   That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to 
fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. 

Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no 
reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it.  They don't 
write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US!  The 
FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not.  

 


The same way any agency applies law. But this one was held up in federal
court.
Where does it say in the act of 1934 that you can have UL spectrum???

Where in the law - since there was no law, right? This is the FCC
opinion - does it say $500M?
You said there was no law. So how did $$ get appropriated?
In the CALEA Act of 1994 there was probably money, but it has probably
been spent too.

This review states that providers had to pony up.
http://www.is-journal.org/V02I03/g-park.pdf

For data, it doesn't appear that bad. You have to have a CALEA compliant
router at egress. Cisco is compliant.
The standard is ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new).
You just need to capture IP traffic at the point of egress and VPN it to
the FBI transparently.

For VoIP, it is much more difficult.

When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking 
chairs, he is almost accurate.

(It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry).

The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority.
But typically they can ruin it for the lot.
   



RUIN  Ruin what?  Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is 
going to buy us something?   Please.  That's being more gullible than the 
emperor's cheering squad. 

Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to 
have ANY interest in your future at all.  
 


How is complying with the law brown nosing?
How is yelling on a public forum that I'm not going to comply helpful?
You think that will get YOU any where???
Have you taken any steps to share your thoughts directly with your
Congress Critter, the FCC, or the Feds?
Did you activate your million person network to complain?

WISP's want more spectrum. You can't get it if you don't play the game.
CLEC's did not learn a lesson in the last 10 years. It took me 6 to
figure out what the game was.

Another helpful document from Verisign on CALEA:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6518176688






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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread George Rogato



Peter R. wrote:


You guys do complain loudly but do very little action.
It is left to the few to fight for the many.



It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and 
join wispa so that we can make things happen.




--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread George Rogato
Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in 
wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry.
One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee 
that would promote wisps in their market place.


Sounds good?

Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet 
there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help.


Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the 
most giving. and he's not a wisp.


Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the 
mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to 
benefit wisps.


So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to 
run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you.


Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to 
be active in wispa.


Thanks

George

George Rogato wrote:



Peter R. wrote:


You guys do complain loudly but do very little action.
It is left to the few to fight for the many.



It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and 
join wispa so that we can make things happen.






--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread George Rogato

As a matter of fact, to give Peter R. some pay back for helping us.
Do you guys know that he is  the man to get you great pricing on 
bandwidth, just about anyplace in the country.


So there is a plug for Peter R. and his ability to help you buy better.

George

George Rogato wrote:
Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in 
wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry.
One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee 
that would promote wisps in their market place.


Sounds good?

Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet 
there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help.


Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the 
most giving. and he's not a wisp.


Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the 
mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to 
benefit wisps.


So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to 
run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you.


Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to 
be active in wispa.


Thanks

George

George Rogato wrote:



Peter R. wrote:


You guys do complain loudly but do very little action.
It is left to the few to fight for the many.



It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 
and join wispa so that we can make things happen.








--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is 
a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply.
A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they 
need to make to allow it to be easy to conform.
DOJ doesn't concern itself with HOW to conform, they aren't ISPs and 
knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our 
capabilties.
I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have 
been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably 
purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their 
competitors to comply to.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?



On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote

During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ
clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA
compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.


Oh, please.  The DOJ doesn't write law.  the DOJ wants EVERYTHING.  If it
were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice
transmission, and they've all but said so.  Too bad.  That's wrong, and
that's the truth.



Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that
CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them.
That's not how it works.


If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was
wrong.



You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
But this is not a one-way street.


I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out 
it's

assigned duties?  Hell no!



To get you have to give.
You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad
guys - without the bad guys knowing.


Again, here we go again.  You make up stuff and then slam me for it.  I 
don't
get it.  CALEA is not applicable law.  It is WRONG for the feds to require 
US

to pay for what they want.  Period.

Do you not get that?   That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, 
to
fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW 
LAW.


Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no
reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it.  They 
don't

write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US!  The
FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not.



Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill
out a poll or a form.


Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not.



When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking
chairs, he is almost accurate.
(It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry).

The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority.
But typically they can ruin it for the lot.


RUIN  Ruin what?  Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing 
is

going to buy us something?   Please.  That's being more gullible than the
emperor's cheering squad.

Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to
have ANY interest in your future at all.





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/ 


--
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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Rick Smith
u got it.

Verizons of the world are out there saying $100k for a way to stop terrorism
?  NO PROBLEM!

Those little guys must be sucked up and put out of business, so we can
prevent another 9/11

argh what a crock of $**7! 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is
a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply.
A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they
need to make to allow it to be easy to conform.
DOJ doesn't concern itself with HOW to conform, they aren't ISPs and
knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our
capabilties.
I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have
been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably
purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their
competitors to comply to.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?


 On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote
 During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ
 clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA
 compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.

 Oh, please.  The DOJ doesn't write law.  the DOJ wants EVERYTHING.  If it
 were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice
 transmission, and they've all but said so.  Too bad.  That's wrong, and
 that's the truth.


 Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that
 CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them.
 That's not how it works.

 If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was
 wrong.


 You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
 But this is not a one-way street.

 I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out 
 it's
 assigned duties?  Hell no!


 To get you have to give.
 You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
 You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad
 guys - without the bad guys knowing.

 Again, here we go again.  You make up stuff and then slam me for it.  I 
 don't
 get it.  CALEA is not applicable law.  It is WRONG for the feds to require

 US
 to pay for what they want.  Period.

 Do you not get that?   That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, 
 to
 fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW 
 LAW.

 Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no
 reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it.  They 
 don't
 write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US!  The
 FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not.


 Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill
 out a poll or a form.

 Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not.


 When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking
 chairs, he is almost accurate.
 (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry).

 The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority.
 But typically they can ruin it for the lot.

 RUIN  Ruin what?  Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing 
 is
 going to buy us something?   Please.  That's being more gullible than the
 emperor's cheering squad.

 Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to
 have ANY interest in your future at all.




 
 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/ 

-- 
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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Sam Tetherow

Peter R. wrote:
During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.


Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's 
and ISP's have ever done:

Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works.

You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
But this is not a one-way street.
Not sure what you mean here Peter.  Are you implying that if we don't go 
along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any 
more UL spectrum?  This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, 
but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS.


If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to 
everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more time 
figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that can and 
will provide that access.


I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent 
ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage.   If this CALEA crap 
ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end I doubt 
I will.  I'll probably just be looking to sell out if possible or 
shutdown down when a fine is threatened.  I can try raising prices to 
cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond well to raising prices.


To get you have to give.
You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad 
guys - without the bad guys knowing.
I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping the 
authorities catch the bad guys.  I have seen Mark protest footing the 
bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority of government 
agencies attempting to regulate his business.


I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust regulation 
as an industry.  I would really like to hear a legal person's opinion on 
Mark's objections. 

The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim the 
authority to do something invasive.  I seem to remember that they felt 
CARNIVORE was legal and justified.


Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm betting 
he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a Republican 
run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills 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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to
this in this document square with these discussions?
http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf
. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Smith
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:08 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ?

I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
discussion at the FBI...

-- 
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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:55:18 -0500, Sam Tetherow wrote
 Peter R. wrote:
  During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
  clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
  compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.
 
  Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's 
  and ISP's have ever done:
  Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works.
 
  You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
  But this is not a one-way street.
 Not sure what you mean here Peter.  Are you implying that if we 
 don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we 
 don't deserve any more UL spectrum?  This, as an argument for filing 
 the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS.
 
 If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to 
 everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more 
 time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that 
 can and will provide that access.
 
 I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent 
 ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage.   If this CALEA 
 crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end 
 I doubt I will.  I'll probably just be looking to sell out if 
 possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened.  I can try 
 raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond 
 well to raising prices.

Let me quote www.askcalea.com

Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband 
networks that could impose significant costs?

A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband 
services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those 
broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits 
those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see 
fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, 
it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special deficiency 
petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that 
decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may 
refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For 
example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore 
CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue 
compliance costs.

Theoretically, we have their word that it won't cost us, or require us to 
reengineer our networks.

But from almost EVERYONE's conversations, we get we have to redesign, 
unless some people can use existing equipment's ability to mirror traffic 
from a particular IP.  As of now, I see people talking about using PCAP, 
Cisco's internal system, managed switches at the gateway, etc.  None of this 
makes a bit of sense if all we're supposed to do is capture VOIP packets!

I have been attempting to make this point, that CALEA doesn't work for 
broadband internet, and I fail to see any relevance to broadband, since 
SUPPOSEDLY VOIP has to be tapped where it connects to the PSTN. 

I said that pending the outcome of people talking to the FBI and DOJ, that I 
am probably going to file that I am NOT and cannot be made compliant.  

Gee whiz,  I expect that in 6-9 months, my network will have either 2 or 3 
physically separated gateways to the 'net.  In no place on my network, is 
there either software, or physical connections that allow me to do anything 
of the kind they envision.  Nor am I willing to redesign my network's 
fundamental concept in order to comply.  

You get the distinct impression that while CALEA talks about nothing other 
than intercepting phone calls, that they want to tap broadband 
for everything else.  If VOIP providers are compliant, why tap our 
networks?  If htey aren't, then what do they expect to get?  



 
  To get you have to give.
  You have to fill out your forms without whining so much.
  You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad 
  guys - without the bad guys knowing.
 I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping 
 the authorities catch the bad guys.  I have seen Mark protest 
 footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority 
 of government agencies attempting to regulate his business.
 
 I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust 
 regulation as an industry.  I would really like to hear a legal 
 person's opinion on Mark's objections.

I've repeated that I absolutely intend to help, in any way possible, law 
enforcement's efforts to catch bad guys.  I'll do what I can, and I don't 
consider that any imposition... but if I have to pay someone to do something 
for them, I expect them to pay the bill.  Any help in capturing data will 
have to come from my upstream, as I have no central physical NOC to do this 
at... and never expect to.  

Unlike someone's mischaracterization of what I said here, 

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

It was forwarded to the general wisp list.

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



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...



How did you get the thread then?

Lonnie

On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Im not on that list.
sorry,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? 
Thanks.


Patrick


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

I found this thread interesting.

Enjoy,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 
5:51

PM
Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about
Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them
from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some
use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.



Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c:
760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?

  No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e 
 used.

 Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God
 forbid!)

  How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would a SA
  show the channel width to be?

  Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE 
 will

 adjust automatically.

  What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without
  reflector, with?

  The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the 
 VL
 to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 
 5

 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your
 Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure
 produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o 
 reflector

 is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a
 reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10
 miles.

  Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to 
 assist

  in the network development of Canopy products?

  There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty 
 of

 opportunity for direct consultation.

  Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing?

  In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which 
 include
 QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the 
 box

 (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)

  Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
  allocated, how true are those figures?  Is the allocation dynamic? 
 Can

  you mix breeds of SM on the AP?

  VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with 
 trees,

 but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates
 (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a 
 lower
 rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if you 
 wish.

 All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector.

  Can an SM access the AP it's on for management?

  In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management access.

  Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic?

  Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set per
 subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears its
 limit.

  Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization?  Doesn't this limit the
  radio's ability to co-locate?

  The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be 
 either
 H or V pol mounted. The AUs can be mounted either way (by way of 
 antenna

 choice).

  Why is the latency so high for the APs (5-7ms)?

  N/A, but looking in terms of a specific application, the delay with 
 the
 optional WLP (wireless link prioritization feature) feature is stable 
 at

 4 or less ms.


  What is the maximum PPS per AP?

  Up to about 6 downstream and 48000 upstream.

  Are there any tools to prevent or reduce the impact from an end-user
  launching a DoS attack?

  Yes, the broadcast rate limiting feature was designed specifically
 because of this threat.

  How do the APs handle VoIP traffic?  Is there anything that can assist
  this?

  Better, literally, than any other AP in unlicensed, with 

RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:10 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote

The question is... if we're not providing VOIP service, doesn't this apply to 
the VOIP provider, and not me?



 How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming 
 immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? 
http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf
 . . . j o n a t h a n



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] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread Patrick Leary
Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the
questions originated.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

It was forwarded to the general wisp list.

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



- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


 How did you get the thread then?

 Lonnie

 On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Im not on that list.
 sorry,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


 Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? 
 Thanks.

 Patrick


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I found this thread interesting.
 
 Enjoy,
 marlon
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09,
2007 
 5:51
 PM
 Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
 
 
 So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions
about
 Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer
them
 from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get
some
 use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.
 
 
 
 Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c:
 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?
 
   No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e

  used.
  Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices
(God
  forbid!)
 
   How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would
a SA
   show the channel width to be?
 
   Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE

  will
  adjust automatically.
 
   What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation
without
   reflector, with?
 
   The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on
the 
  VL
  to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp),
16mbps at 
  5
  miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to
your
  Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT
brochure
  produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o 
  reflector
  is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have
a
  reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to
10
  miles.
 
   Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to 
  assist
   in the network development of Canopy products?
 
   There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and
plenty 
  of
  opportunity for direct consultation.
 
   Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special
routing?
 
   In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which 
  include
  QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of
the 
  box
  (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)
 
   Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
   allocated, how true are those figures?  Is the allocation dynamic?

  Can
   you mix breeds of SM on the AP?
 
   VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with

  trees,
  but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates
  (dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a

  lower
  rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if
you 
  wish.
  All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector.
 
   Can an SM access the AP it's on for management?
 
   In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management
access.
 
   Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic?
 
   Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set
per
  subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears
its
  limit.
 
   Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization?  Doesn't this limit
the
   radio's ability to co-locate?
 
   The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be 
  either
  H or V pol mounted. The AUs can be mounted either way (by way of 
  antenna
  choice).
 
   Why is the latency so high for the APs (5-7ms)?
 
   N/A, but looking in terms 

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread George Rogato

I've seen you on the MOTO list in the past :)

Your a real trooper.
Wish there were some unemployed Patrick Leary clones around.
WOW, could you imaging what a Patrick Leary clone could do for your 
business.


Yikes, talk about agressive...



Patrick Leary wrote:

Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the
questions originated.

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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

It was forwarded to the general wisp list.

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



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...



How did you get the thread then?

Lonnie

On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Im not on that list.
sorry,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? 
Thanks.


Patrick


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:


I found this thread interesting.

Enjoy,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09,
2007 

5:51
PM
Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions

about

Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer

them

from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get

some

use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.



Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c:
760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?

 No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e



used.
Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices

(God

forbid!)

 How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would

a SA

 show the channel width to be?

 Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE



will
adjust automatically.

 What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation

without

 reflector, with?

 The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on
the 

VL
to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp),
16mbps at 

5
miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to

your

Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT

brochure
produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o 
reflector

is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have

a

reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to

10

miles.

 Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to 
assist

 in the network development of Canopy products?

 There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and
plenty 

of
opportunity for direct consultation.

 Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special

routing?
 In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which 
include

QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of
the 

box
(it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)

 Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
 allocated, how true are those figures?  Is the allocation dynamic?



Can
 you mix breeds of SM on the AP?

 VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with



trees,
but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates
(dynamic) to maintain the best connection. Each mod level down is a



lower
rate. You can also set the radio to fix on a modulation level if
you 

wish.
All VL CPE versions work seamlessly together in any sector.

 Can an SM access the AP it's on for management?

 In VL the operator can assign multiple stations for management

access.

 Is there a feature to disable broadcast traffic?

 Yes, VL has a broadcast rate limiting feature which can be set

per

subscriber. It can also send you a trap if any set station nears

its

limit.

 Why can't the APs use horizontal polarization?  Doesn't this limit

the

 radio's ability to co-locate?

 The CPEs now have an option (in the rev E version hardware) to be 
either
H or V pol mounted. The 

RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-12 Thread Patrick Leary
A clone? God forbid. My wife would not tolerate it, much less anyone
else.

BTW, I did not post that to the Moto list though, out of competitive
respect. It was just a really interesting and l o n g  list and I
thought it would be interesting, if only for me, to give a shot
answering it from a VL perspective (they were all Moto questions) and
comparing, if only to myself. I did get a few private responses from the
WISP post and I am getting to them.

P.S. - I am more persistent than aggressive...well, maybe a bit of both.


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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

I've seen you on the MOTO list in the past :)

Your a real trooper.
Wish there were some unemployed Patrick Leary clones around.
WOW, could you imaging what a Patrick Leary clone could do for your 
business.

Yikes, talk about agressive...



Patrick Leary wrote:
 Correct. I did not post it to the Moto list, though that is where the
 questions originated.
 
 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 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
 
 It was forwarded to the general wisp list.
 
 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)And I run my own
wisp!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
 
 
 How did you get the thread then?

 Lonnie

 On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Im not on that list.
 sorry,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:27 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


 Could you forward along the Motorola thread as well for comparison? 
 Thanks.

 Patrick


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

 I found this thread interesting.

 Enjoy,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09,
 2007 
 5:51
 PM
 Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


 So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions
 about
 Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer
 them
 from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get
 some
 use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.



 Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c:
 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?

  No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e
 
 used.
 Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices
 (God
 forbid!)

  How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would
 a SA
  show the channel width to be?

  Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE
 
 will
 adjust automatically.

  What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation
 without
  reflector, with?

  The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on
 the 
 VL
 to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp),
 16mbps at 
 5
 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to
 your
 Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT
 brochure
 produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o 
 reflector
 is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have
 a
 reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to
 10
 miles.

  Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to 
 assist
  in the network development of Canopy products?

  There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and
 plenty 
 of
 opportunity for direct consultation.

  Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special
 routing?
  In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which 
 include
 QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of
 the 
 box
 (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)

  Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
  allocated, how true are those 

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Mikrotik

2007-03-12 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Peter,

Thank you for the link. I have not finished reading it yet but you are 
correct it has very interesting so far.

I hope to see you in Orlando in May. ;-)

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Peter R. wrote:

excellent thread:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=67031sid=100a5b7521057953a31a8ecf60bed196 





--
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 - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Frank Muto

LAES stands for; lawfully authorized electronic surveillance.



Frank Muto
WBIA www.wbia.us

P.S. Also a supporting WISPA vendor.






- Original Message - 
From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?



On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote

Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to
provide ?

I.e. data format, etc.  - It was my impression that this was still under
discussion at the FBI...


There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for
something or other.

As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program
something to use it.  Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE.

http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html

Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here.  That's because
CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC
less than 12 months ago - May 2006.

If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching)
equipment vendors to be compliant.   Technically, this requires all WISP
equipment vendors to be compliant, too.

That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would 
all
have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, 
do

any data routing or manipulation.

SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays 
the
licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy 
it.


Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot.

Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this 
industry

is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go
back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to 
laws

written for the telco.  The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the
standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the 
railroads

conform to airline laws, or vice versa.

The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions 
that
make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this 
in

clear and unmistakeable terms.

Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members 
for
a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their 
decision,

and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND
MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse.

At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely 
NOT

having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry)
everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing.

Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is 
NOT,

and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat.  For almost no
effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, 
and
you will NOT capture anything useful.  VPN's can be encrypted and even a 
VOIP
call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and 
I'll

bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today.

Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which
means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data 
will

be incomplete.

CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's
woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening 
device

tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous.

unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do.  CALEA envisioned 
restoring
the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple 
copper
wires carrying sound across them in analog form.  CALEA was the response 
to

switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed
adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL
phones had to comply.  Gee, they existed when CALEA was written.

They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a 
technology

light years away from what CALEA applies to as written.  It cannot be done
without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's
freedom to communicate, as well.

We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our
country to JUST SAY NO!.  It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse 
of

technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an
impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting.




--
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: 

RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread paul hendry
What board are you running Mikrotik on and do you see any latency on the 
5.8 side?

-Original Message-
From: Rick Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 12 March 2007 20:28
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

yep, no matter which channel. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

Have you looked at it with a spectrum analyzer? I see this type of 
behavior
in a high noise environment. Does it persist through all channels?

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Rick Smith wrote:
 yeah, 100' away from the pop.  across the street (dead side street, 
 antenna way up above car level)

 This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're 
 the first on the repeater...


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

 History? Did it ever work?

 Distance? 100' from the POP?

 The signals are too hot.

 jack


 Rick Smith wrote:
   
 I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

 with currently one customer on it.

 He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High 
 Gain Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms 
 pings and some time-outs.

 I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 
 to 5 devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network 
 connection just flaps like crazy because of the latency.

 Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected 
 (it's
 
 a
   
 hotspot on a rooftop)

 But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the
 
 hotspot
   
 with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of 
 his other computers with a wifi card in it.

 Things to look for / do ?

 R



 

   

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

2007-03-12 Thread Jack Unger

Rick,

The signals levels sound like they may be WAY TOO HIGH for this short of 
a link. Receiver overload has the effect of making a receiver deaf. 
Try a tiny antenna (maybe a rubber duck) on the CPE and re-do the ping 
test.


jack


Rick Smith wrote:


yeah, 100' away from the pop.  across the street (dead side street, antenna
way up above car level)

This is the first week we had this customer connected - and they're the
first on the repeater...


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange Symptoms

History? Did it ever work?

Distance? 100' from the POP?

The signals are too hot.

jack


Rick Smith wrote:


I have a system - Mikrotik 5.8 in on SR5 / 2.4 out on SR2

with currently one customer on it.

He's seeing occasional REALLY high latency through his device (High Gain
Antennas 8186hp @ 100' away from the POP) - like 900 - 5000 ms pings and
some time-outs.

I'm on what Mikrotik is telling me is a relatively quiet channel (3 to 5
devices at an average of -90's noise floor) and yet his network connection
just flaps like crazy because of the latency.  


Can't run nstreme because of the devices I'd need to have connected (it's


a


hotspot on a rooftop)

But, I'm perplexed as to why this is doing this.  A drive up to the


hotspot


with my laptop produces the same results, as does a test from one of his
other computers with a wifi card in it.

Things to look for / do ?

R








--
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] Calea - what will we need to provide ?

2007-03-12 Thread Peter R.

Sam Tetherow wrote:


Peter R. wrote:

During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ 
clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA 
compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ.


Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that 
CLEC's and ISP's have ever done:

Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works.

You want UL spectrum. You want more of it.
But this is not a one-way street.


Not sure what you mean here Peter.  Are you implying that if we don't 
go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't 
deserve any more UL spectrum?  This, as an argument for filing the 477 
I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS.



Well, that's the way DC works - you do for me and I do for you.
The CLEC's did not learn that lesson.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

2007-03-12 Thread Tim Wolfe
I'm safe. If she wants me, she has already been to my house, so she 
knows where to find me (And before you even start, Ken was here with 
her). :-)



JohnnyO wrote:

LookOuT TIM ! Dawn is tracking you ! (hehehe)

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:24 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Driving would be 4hrs 45 min and 249 miles according to google. ;-)

Tim Wolfe wrote:
  

I am not sure mileage wise, but it is at LEAST a 3.5hr drive for me.



JohnnyO wrote:


How far away are you from that location ?

JohnnyO

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

On
  

Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

If it is that great?, maybe we should hang an AP and get busy?. Do 
you know any good consultants that could show us how to do it?., LOL!
  


  

:-$


JohnnyO wrote:
 
  

It's a great area sir !
JohnnyO

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



On
 
  

Behalf Of Tim Wolfe
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NorthWest PA / SouthEast PA - Service Needed

Hey Johnny, I would love too, but that one would require one heck of


a
  


 
  

PtP shot!. I don't think there is anyone there??.




JohnnyO wrote:
 


Can Anyone service this location 
 
Link to a google map -   Location


  
  

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=41+39+13+-79+28+53layer=ie=UT
  
 
  
 


F8z=9ll=41.752873,-79.035645spn=0.850327,2.768555om=1  to be
serviced  
How about Saxton PA 
 
Regards,
 
JohnnyO

  
  

  
  


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] UHF tower co-location

2007-03-12 Thread J. Vogel
looking for someone that knows more about this than me  (which may be
most everybody) to give me a quick heads-up..

Up to this point, all of the access points I have deployed have been on
water towers or buildings which did not have any other significant RF
equipment on them. I may have an opportunity to co-locate on a UHF
TV transmitter tower now though. Can someone tell me in just a few
words whether or not I should even consider mounting WISP equipment
on such a tower, and what some of the issues I would face would be?

According to the FCC site, the tower is operating  between 566-572 mhz
at about 12.5kW analog, and 7.2kW digital. Interference in unlicensed
bands (900mHz, 2.4gHz, and 5.8gHz), radio frequency hazards etc...
any information you could give me would be helpful.

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

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

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