Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Scott Reed
Right.  And my point is, they should be easy to get certified.  How do 
we get the various SBC vendors we use to get their boards certified as 
non-intentional radiators that can hold intentionally radiating modules?


ralph wrote:

Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device
SBC=not
WRAP=not
RB=not

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scott Reed
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval

Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP = RB 
= ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a unique
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:

And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional 
questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable 
antennae in its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified 
if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare 
as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise 
being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures that 
increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in 
a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like saying 
I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use in 
our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And if 
we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the 
antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally 
use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:
  

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that 
very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have 
certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. 
I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember 
that the software used must limit operation of the complete system 
only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:

I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card 
and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is 
right, not any base, but I would read it that any certified 
base is doable.
I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered 
to find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card 
with a set of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for a radio 
card.  Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it 
connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified 
with the CM9.


Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base unit, 
we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper 
antenna and be good.  The gotcha here is those sections of Part 
15 I have not yet followed up on.  I am not sure what the 
professional installer stuff is about.


What am I missing or is this good news?

Jack Unger wrote:
  

Tim,

I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying 
that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base unit.


I think what the FCC is doing is:

1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a 
legal modular assembly is.


2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data 
inputs, and power supply regulation.


3. Clarifying the definition of what a split modular assembly is.

4. Defining the 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

Two quick thoughts:

1) If it was so easy to encrypt, more would do so. These things are to 
catch the mastermind genius, which thankfully are few and far between, 
but to catch the idiots. And most people are surrounded by idiots. Why 
even... never mind.
If encryption was easy, PGP would be universal and Enron and company 
would not have been embarrassed by the emails.


2) I get that CALEA - and other gov't induced regulation - is one big 
PITA and should be fought.  But, ya know, it is VERY freaking hard to 
get any support to fight these measures. (How many volunteered to go to 
DC?) Even you posted  anonymously, so how do you get support? And since 
you won't use your identity here,  I assume that getting you to post to 
the FCC or write a Congress Critter or anything wouldn't happen.


Lemmings? No.  But it is, IMO, better to help people who want to comply 
- to provide information, solutions, thoughts. Since we are under a 
deadline, spending the little time to comply is what I see as a 
productive use of my time.


I get calls from frightened owners who don't know how to comply, who 
have vendors scaring them into a $800 per month box, who get varying 
answers to questions from different sources. So this is how I choose to 
direct my effort.


If you and Mark and others want to spend this time period re-directing 
the Lemmings to run up Capital Hill, be my guest.
But it would be just as effective to do this on May 15, after we have 
helped the many who want to comply.


That's my 25 cents.

Peter @ RAD-INFO

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

RANT

I have sat back and observed for some time now (with much disdain) as  
the 'herd' runs as fast as we can toward the cliff.


I am still waiting to see if the herd (WE) turn out to be lemmings or  
not, but the cliff is quickly and abruptly approaching.


   1.

  CALEA compliance for WISPs...
 1.

WHY?
   1.

  Members really perceive it will foster increased  
national security.

  *

Not really, there are numerous open sourced  
encryption / traffic scramble techniques
which render useless a raw packet stream  
capture. (These efforts are born of a noble cause, that of subverting  
tyrannical government communications interceptions, primarily focused  
upon subverting the effort of governments known for human rights  
violations like North Korea, China, etc.) But one must presume that  
these same tools can and will be employed by criminals with malice, 
as  well as employed for good PATRIOTS in these other unfortunate  
circumstances / countries.

o

  mac spoofing, onion routing, anonymous  
relay, hybrid layer X techniques

o

  non standards based file / data  
encryption techniques

o

  Steganography , Mnemonics, NUMEROUS  
Crypts / Cyphers

o

  Combinations of the above plus more!
   2.

  Because Carnivore's commercial replacement is not  
doing the job already?

  *

The FED has replaced the Carnivore program  
with an amendment to CALEA, and it is a move which transferred the  
costs of the program from the government to you! The feds already 
have  the technology to do this, they just decided they wanted you to 
pay  for it.

  *

Why don't we observe (in time frame context)  
some EOIs (Events of interest)

o

  In late 2004 it is becoming more  
apparent that the RBOC battles over muni-wireless are losing ground,  
despite lobby dollars and presumably, promises of legislation  
supporting the RBOCs effort.

o

  Additionally, in late 2004 the CLECs  
really started eyeballing these WISP guys and it occurred to the 
CLECs  that what the WISPs had going was GOOD. Rather than re-invent 
the  wheel with traditional wired facilities, (UNE was dead or dying 
at  this time), so we began initiatives to re-organize accordingly.

o

  But alas, they did not go so far as to  
form tight alliances to the WISP community. Regardless, the die was  
cast. WISPs had made ripples to the very tops of the incumbent 
carrier  realm via the interest put forth by the CLECs.

o

   
http://www.public-i.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=744
  Take some time to REALLY observe the  
changes taking place in ILEC, RBOC, and CABLECO lobby spending during  
2003-2006. Notice how they increased HUGELY and now 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? - Libraries

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

About libraries and CALEA:

When the FCC extended CALEA to all facilities-based broadband Internet
access providers in September 2005, it deemed it not to be in the public
interest at that time to extend CALEA to libraries “that acquire 
broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to 
enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet.” Thus, any 
library that acquires its Internet access from another provider has no 
CALEA obligation whatsoever. The access provider may be a commercial ISP 
or a state or local network operator, or a university or college. It 
does not matter which under the FCC’s reasoning -- libraries are exempt.


Even Universities have to be Compliant under certain conditions.



Peter @ RAD-INFO

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

RANT

I have sat back and observed for some time now (with much disdain) as  
the 'herd' runs as fast as we can toward the cliff.


I am still waiting to see if the herd (WE) turn out to be lemmings or  
not, but the cliff is quickly and abruptly approaching.


   1.

  CALEA compliance for WISPs...
 1.

WHY?
   1.

  Members really perceive it will foster increased  
national security.

  *

Not really, there are numerous open sourced  
encryption / traffic scramble techniques
which render useless a raw packet stream  
capture. (These efforts are born of a noble cause, that of subverting  
tyrannical government communications interceptions, primarily focused  
upon subverting the effort of governments known for human rights  
violations like North Korea, China, etc.) But one must presume that  
these same tools can and will be employed by criminals with malice, 
as  well as employed for good PATRIOTS in these other unfortunate  
circumstances / countries.

o

  mac spoofing, onion routing, anonymous  
relay, hybrid layer X techniques

o

  non standards based file / data  
encryption techniques

o

  Steganography , Mnemonics, NUMEROUS  
Crypts / Cyphers

o

  Combinations of the above plus more!
   2.

  Because Carnivore's commercial replacement is not  
doing the job already?

  *

The FED has replaced the Carnivore program  
with an amendment to CALEA, and it is a move which transferred the  
costs of the program from the government to you! The feds already 
have  the technology to do this, they just decided they wanted you to 
pay  for it.

  *

Why don't we observe (in time frame context)  
some EOIs (Events of interest)

o

  In late 2004 it is becoming more  
apparent that the RBOC battles over muni-wireless are losing ground,  
despite lobby dollars and presumably, promises of legislation  
supporting the RBOCs effort.

o

  Additionally, in late 2004 the CLECs  
really started eyeballing these WISP guys and it occurred to the 
CLECs  that what the WISPs had going was GOOD. Rather than re-invent 
the  wheel with traditional wired facilities, (UNE was dead or dying 
at  this time), so we began initiatives to re-organize accordingly.

o

  But alas, they did not go so far as to  
form tight alliances to the WISP community. Regardless, the die was  
cast. WISPs had made ripples to the very tops of the incumbent 
carrier  realm via the interest put forth by the CLECs.

o

   
http://www.public-i.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=744
  Take some time to REALLY observe the  
changes taking place in ILEC, RBOC, and CABLECO lobby spending during  
2003-2006. Notice how they increased HUGELY and now encompassed not  
only Federal, but now also STATE / LOCAL levels of government? Notice  
how your business value as a WISP has eroded during this same time  
frame?

   3.

  It is the Law
o

  hmm MLK, was a law breaker.
  Well, I suppose that if a law were  
entered into record requiring that your children be implanted with  
RFID or some other tracking system, you would call a meeting to see  
how you can most efficiently comply?

o

  Can't happen you say? Ok, suppose a law  
gets voted in that requires child inoculation. Next suppose that same  
law gets amended w/o voter over site to also include RFID implant.  

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Steve
For your info,
It is very easy to encrypt. there are plenty of easy to use tools for
using impossible  to break encryption. if you can use hotmail, you can
use hushmail.  The fact is that in my conversation with people I have
discovered that they just don't care to encrypt.. I don't have anything
to hide  they say.  not realizing that every time they use an email
client to log into their pop account, their username and password is
sent in the clear, easily intercepted by the novice computer user who
happens to download ethereal and see what interesting things are
happening on your WISP.  (Unless you are smart, and kindly provided ssl
or tls email accounts for them.)

If you will remember, Mr. Bin Laden found it worth his while to take 5
minutes to learn to use PGP and a little stegonography, and I think that
anyone with ill intent and half a brain will figure it out too.

These CALEA tools are not intended to catch the real criminals,
terrorists, etc. because they will in the first place not be a
subscriber when they send their encrypted message through your network.

Currently most people trust that the Gov is abiding by the law, but if
they had reason to believe that all their phone conversations and all
their web traffic was being spied upon, they might change their habits.
Good day!
Steve

-

Peter R. wrote:
 Two quick thoughts:

 1) If it was so easy to encrypt, more would do so. These things are to
 catch the mastermind genius, which thankfully are few and far between,
 but to catch the idiots. And most people are surrounded by idiots. Why
 even... never mind.
 If encryption was easy, PGP would be universal and Enron and company
 would not have been embarrassed by the emails.

 2) I get that CALEA - and other gov't induced regulation - is one big
 PITA and should be fought.  But, ya know, it is VERY freaking hard to
 get any support to fight these measures. (How many volunteered to go
 to DC?) Even you posted  anonymously, so how do you get support? And
 since you won't use your identity here,  I assume that getting you to
 post to the FCC or write a Congress Critter or anything wouldn't happen.

 Lemmings? No.  But it is, IMO, better to help people who want to
 comply - to provide information, solutions, thoughts. Since we are
 under a deadline, spending the little time to comply is what I see as
 a productive use of my time.

 I get calls from frightened owners who don't know how to comply, who
 have vendors scaring them into a $800 per month box, who get varying
 answers to questions from different sources. So this is how I choose
 to direct my effort.

 If you and Mark and others want to spend this time period re-directing
 the Lemmings to run up Capital Hill, be my guest.
 But it would be just as effective to do this on May 15, after we have
 helped the many who want to comply.

 That's my 25 cents.

 Peter @ RAD-INFO

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

 RANT

 I have sat back and observed for some time now (with much disdain)
 as  the 'herd' runs as fast as we can toward the cliff.

 I am still waiting to see if the herd (WE) turn out to be lemmings
 or  not, but the cliff is quickly and abruptly approaching.

1.

   CALEA compliance for WISPs...
  1.

 WHY?
1.

   Members really perceive it will foster increased 
 national security.
   *

 Not really, there are numerous open sourced 
 encryption / traffic scramble techniques
 which render useless a raw packet stream 
 capture. (These efforts are born of a noble cause, that of
 subverting  tyrannical government communications interceptions,
 primarily focused  upon subverting the effort of governments known
 for human rights  violations like North Korea, China, etc.) But one
 must presume that  these same tools can and will be employed by
 criminals with malice, as  well as employed for good PATRIOTS in
 these other unfortunate  circumstances / countries.
 o

   mac spoofing, onion routing, anonymous 
 relay, hybrid layer X techniques
 o

   non standards based file / data 
 encryption techniques
 o

   Steganography , Mnemonics, NUMEROUS 
 Crypts / Cyphers
 o

   Combinations of the above plus more!
2.

   Because Carnivore's commercial replacement is not 
 doing the job already?
   *

 The FED has replaced the Carnivore program 
 with an amendment to CALEA, and it is a move which transferred the 
 costs of the program from the government to you! The feds already
 have  the technology to do this, they just decided they wanted you to
 pay  for it.
   

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Scott,

The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now 
would it. The SBC would be the host device.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP = 
RB = ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional 
questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP 
usable antennae in its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still 
certified if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare 
as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF 
noise being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures 
that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting 
it in a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like 
saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use 
in our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And 
if we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of 
the antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to 
legally use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that 
very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have 
certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. 
I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, 
remember that the software used must limit operation of the 
complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that are 
legal in the U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card 
and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is 
right, not any base, but I would read it that any certified 
base is doable.
I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't 
bothered to find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the 
CM9 card with a set of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for a 
radio card.  Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it 
connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified 
with the CM9.


Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base 
unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper 
antenna and be good.  The gotcha here is those sections of Part 
15 I have not yet followed up on.  I am not sure what the 
professional installer stuff is about.


What am I missing or is this good news?

Jack Unger wrote:

Tim,

I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is 
saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base 
unit.


I think what the FCC is doing is:

1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a 
legal modular assembly is.


2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data 
inputs, and power supply regulation.


3. Clarifying the definition of what a split modular assembly is.

4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a split 
modular assembly must meet.


Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating 
system, I don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any 
motherboard meets the FCC's definition of a split modular 
assembly. I think the FCC considers a split modular assembly to 
be where circuitry that today would be contained on a single 
modular assembly is (now or in the future) split between two 
different 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

All nicely stated.

So, what do you think we should be DOING?

Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:33 PM
Subject: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?



Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

RANT

I have sat back and observed for some time now (with much disdain) as
the 'herd' runs as fast as we can toward the cliff.

I am still waiting to see if the herd (WE) turn out to be lemmings or
not, but the cliff is quickly and abruptly approaching.

1.

CALEA compliance for WISPs...
1.

WHY?
1.

Members really perceive it will foster increased
national security.
*

Not really, there are numerous open sourced
encryption / traffic scramble techniques
which render useless a raw packet stream
capture. (These efforts are born of a noble cause, that of subverting
tyrannical government communications interceptions, primarily focused
upon subverting the effort of governments known for human rights
violations like North Korea, China, etc.) But one must presume that
these same tools can and will be employed by criminals with malice, as
well as employed for good PATRIOTS in these other unfortunate
circumstances / countries.
o

mac spoofing, onion routing, anonymous
relay, hybrid layer X techniques
o

non standards based file / data
encryption techniques
o

Steganography , Mnemonics, NUMEROUS
Crypts / Cyphers
o

Combinations of the above plus more!
2.

Because Carnivore's commercial replacement is not
doing the job already?
*

The FED has replaced the Carnivore program
with an amendment to CALEA, and it is a move which transferred the
costs of the program from the government to you! The feds already have
the technology to do this, they just decided they wanted you to pay
for it.
*

Why don't we observe (in time frame context)
some EOIs (Events of interest)
o

In late 2004 it is becoming more
apparent that the RBOC battles over muni-wireless are losing ground,
despite lobby dollars and presumably, promises of legislation
supporting the RBOCs effort.
o

Additionally, in late 2004 the CLECs
really started eyeballing these WISP guys and it occurred to the CLECs
that what the WISPs had going was GOOD. Rather than re-invent the
wheel with traditional wired facilities, (UNE was dead or dying at
this time), so we began initiatives to re-organize accordingly.
o

But alas, they did not go so far as to
form tight alliances to the WISP community. Regardless, the die was
cast. WISPs had made ripples to the very tops of the incumbent carrier
realm via the interest put forth by the CLECs.
o


http://www.public-i.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=744
Take some time to REALLY observe the
changes taking place in ILEC, RBOC, and CABLECO lobby spending during
2003-2006. Notice how they increased HUGELY and now encompassed not
only Federal, but now also STATE / LOCAL levels of government? Notice
how your business value as a WISP has eroded during this same time
frame?
3.

It is the Law
o

hmm MLK, was a law breaker.
Well, I suppose that if a law were
entered into record requiring that your children be implanted with
RFID or some other tracking system, you would call a meeting to see
how you can most efficiently comply?
o

Can't happen you say? Ok, suppose a law
gets voted in that requires child inoculation. Next suppose that same
law gets amended w/o voter over site to also include RFID implant.
Well that is essentially what has transpired with CALEA.
o

When CALEA was written (circa 1994) its
reason of creation was to address the digitally switched networking
equipment en vogue at RBOC / ILEC facilities. To be able to lawfully
intercept the CDR (call detail records) of a SUSPECT.
o

Ok, it is the law, is it being applied to:
+

Public libraries whom provide
Internet access? NO
+

Starbucks, McDonalds, Lowes, and
other major corps whom provide public access wifi hotspots? NO
+


http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/techinttele/calea/caleajan07.pdf
4.

It is Patriotic...
o

Way wrong, observe the historical
definition of patriotism. The label of patriot has historically been
applied to groups rebelling.
+
#

Patriots (Founding Fathers
of USA, rebelled against England)
#

Patriots (Dutch group that
rebelled against the Orangists in the United Provinces in the 18th
century.)
#

Les Patriotes, those who
supported independence for what is now Québec, Canada, during the
Lower Canada Rebellion.
o

I think it would more define Patriotic
if we had made efforts in the following areas:
+

Contacting our subscribers to
notify them, and attempt to collect and coordinate their feelings
about this.
+

Operating as a group to notify the
FCC that they should review the form 447 filings that have been made,
so they could calculate the impact 

[WISPA] Re: Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread Justin S. Wilson
We use a combo of:
Cacti
GroundWork (http://www.groundworkopensource.com/products/)
And [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Justin

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

John,

The FCC should not have to bribe Wireless Providers for this 
information. If Wireless Providers are serious about playing in this 
field then they should fill out the proper paperwork they are asked to 
file. If not then they will have to pay the price of not being looked as 
serious players and not given the time of day. With little to no market 
share, why would the FCC even pick up the phone? They have been more 
than generous to meet with WISPA as often as they have.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


John Thomas wrote:
It just seems that if the information is important, the FCC should be 
willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I don't know who would actually put up the money.

John

Peter R. wrote:

I think many (half?) don't even know that they have to file.
Many don't understand CALEA or know that they need to comply.
So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will 
pony up the $200k?


Peter


John Thomas wrote:

Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay 
the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's 
participate?


John






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,C ommission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
I certainly DO want to mix and match.  Hell, it's going on all over 
anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway.  The mix 
and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. 
However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.


This is the specific clause that applies to us:
The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for 
professional installation only.


This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the 
world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say 
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have 
changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would 
bring almost all of them back into compliance.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[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: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval




Why were you waiting for that one?  It sounds like you do NOT want to
mix and match to suit the job.

You can mix and match, you just have to make sure that the
transmitters you mix are certified with the antennas you use.
Certified is certified.  It does not matter that you have other types
in use.  Imagine if you could not mix and match, since that would mean
you could not use Alvarion and Tranzeo on the same tower, which is
certainly not the intent.  Since you can clearly mix different systems
on a tower then it also holds that you can mix different transmitters
with a system.  Just keep each one meeting the proper requirements and
you should be OK.

The new regs are not regulating your entire network as a whole, but
rather are wanting individual parts to be proper.

Lonnie

On 4/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

THAT's the one I've been waiting for.

This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this 
to

mix and match transmitters.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Scott,

 In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
 transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
 would

 you be certifying exactly?

 As quoted from said document;

 The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of
 Section 15.203
 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
 employ a

 unique
 antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna,
 including the
 cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
 module,

 either at
 the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
 change.

 The
 professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
 applied

 to modules.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 Scott Reed wrote:
 And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor 
 is

 certified with.

 From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. 
 If

 we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in its
 certification then:
 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
 certified

 as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified 
 if

 it is in a box?

 Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare as 
 a
 base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
 enclosure

 we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being
 emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase 
 the
 RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box 
 shouldn't

 negate the certification.  That would be like saying I can't put my
 laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.

 If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use in 
 our
 operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And if we 
 can
 show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the antennae 
 we

 use in their certifications, we may be able to legally use a lot more
 equipment.
 

Re: [WISPA] Re: Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread Jason Bunyea

We use groundwork also.


On 4/26/07, Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

We use a combo of:
Cacti
GroundWork (http://www.groundworkopensource.com/products/)
And [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Justin

--
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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Steve

as Patrick Henry once said

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

--

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
 All nicely stated.

 So, what do you think we should be DOING?

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Tim Kerns

Marlon,

What does The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 say? 
and how does this change things?


I thought the professional installation only meant that the installer had 
the knowledge and was allowed by the FCC to determine what antenna and 
xmitter could work together without the complete assembly being certified as 
one.


To me the exclusion of this only means that again the radio module, 
firmware, and antenna have to be certified. Thus if the mfg did this with 
several different antenna then these modules with any of the certified 
combinations of antenna would be legal.


I'm not sure what an N connector has to do with this?  The rule says a 
unique connector. Don't know about you but a u.fl is about as unique as 
you can get and not for the consumer.


Tim


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval



I certainly DO want to mix and match.  Hell, it's going on all over 
anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway.  The 
mix and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. 
However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.


This is the specific clause that applies to us:
may not be applied to modules.

If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for 
professional installation only.


This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the 
world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say 
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have 
changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would 
bring almost all of them back into compliance.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[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: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval




Why were you waiting for that one?  It sounds like you do NOT want to
mix and match to suit the job.

You can mix and match, you just have to make sure that the
transmitters you mix are certified with the antennas you use.
Certified is certified.  It does not matter that you have other types
in use.  Imagine if you could not mix and match, since that would mean
you could not use Alvarion and Tranzeo on the same tower, which is
certainly not the intent.  Since you can clearly mix different systems
on a tower then it also holds that you can mix different transmitters
with a system.  Just keep each one meeting the proper requirements and
you should be OK.

The new regs are not regulating your entire network as a whole, but
rather are wanting individual parts to be proper.

Lonnie

On 4/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

THAT's the one I've been waiting for.

This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this 
to

mix and match transmitters.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Scott,

 In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
 transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
 would

 you be certifying exactly?

 As quoted from said document;

 The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of
 Section 15.203
 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
 employ a

 unique
 antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
 antenna,

 including the
 cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
 module,

 either at
 the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
 change.

 The
 professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
 applied

 to modules.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 Scott Reed wrote:
 And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
 vendor is

 certified with.

 From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. 
 If
 we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in 
 

[WISPA] 700

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission decided on Wednesday to seek 
more public comment on how the sale of valuable wireless airwaves will 
work, a move that could delay the start of the auction.

Read the rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/wr_nm/fcc_auction_dc

Perhaps take the time to comment to the FCC on this docket

4/25/07
FCC Addresses Rules Governing Commercial Wireless and Public Safety 
Licenses in the 700 MHz Spectrum Band.
News Release: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.pdf 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.doc 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.pdf
Martin Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A2.pdf
Copps Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.dochttp://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.pdf
Adelstein Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A4.pdf
McDowell Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A5.pdf


Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a
Report and Order (Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Further Notice) that
address rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz spectrum 
band, commonly
referred to as the “700 MHz Band.” This spectrum is currently occupied 
by television
broadcasters during the digital television (DTV) transition and will be 
made fully available for
wireless services, including public safety and commercial services, when 
the DTV transition is

completed on February 17, 2009.
The FCC has been considering rules related to the use of the 700 MHz 
Band spectrum in
three ongoing proceedings: (1) the 700 MHz Commercial Services 
proceeding, (2) the 700 MHz
Guard Bands proceeding, and (3) the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding. 
Today’s Order and
Further Notice address issues in all three proceedings. These decisions 
and proposals will allow
the FCC to offer a variety of licenses in the 700 MHz auction and 
facilitate the provision of new
and innovative services to consumers across the country, as well as 
clearing the path for
nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband services for the public 
safety community.


Action by the Commission on April 25, 2007 by Report and Order and 
Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 07-72).
WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 01-309, 03-264, 06-169, and 96-86
CC Docket No. 94-102
PS Docket No. 06-229
–


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread David E. Smith
Jory Privett wrote:
 I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and
 graphing.

WhatsUp will do the monitoring and notifications, but at least the
version I've got doesn't do graphing. (In all fairness, it's an older
version, and MRTG does graphing just fine.)

Nagios works, but is a royal PITA to set up.

Haven't worked with most of the others you mentioned.

I'm seriously getting into Mikrotik's The Dude software, actually. I
don't think it has an SMS interface, but it can send email (and if your
goal is to get the message to a cell phone, most carriers can receive
email and convert it to a text message). It combines monitoring and
graphing in one really spiffy interface. Oh, and it's free, which is
always an important criterion for WISP operations :D

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Tim Kerns


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the 
world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say 
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have 
changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would 
bring almost all of them back into compliance.


This is where I don't see that we are any different. What is the difference 
between an IPAQ, Dell, and SBC's  like WRAP, Gateworks, Metro, etc. They are 
computers, they are base units that a radio module is installed into, they 
run an OS. Their primary purpose is to be a computer and we the WISP 
community have used them to become AP's or Clients. My Dell laptop with it's 
installed minipci radio is a Client. And if I chose to install other 
software it can be an AP. The only thing I see my laptop from being legal is 
if I chose to attach a different antenna than what is already there. But if 
the manufacture of that radio had certified it with say a 24bd grid then I 
could attach that grid to the laptop and still be legal.


Again this is MY wishful understanding of this new rule.

Tim

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

BTW, I never said not to fight it.

I think that a majority of people want to comply and that should be the 
short term aim.


Fighting it should have been done earlier, but can certainly be done now 
(or after May 14). It will just be harder.


I would suggest those that want to fight should contact the American 
Library Assoc. or ACE who are fighting the lost appeal.


At this point in the court process, there will be room for an Amicus 
Brief if it is Appealed by ALA or ACE and is taken by the Supreme Court. 
The Amicus Brief costs about $20K to get a lawyer to write. (That's 
correct, we were quoted $20K for Brand-X).


You can start a new lawsuit (about $50K).

Or you can start writing Congress. Grass roots. Change the law. Yelling 
at the Feds or FCC will not change anything.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed.  It simply says
that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA.  Once something
becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.

Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes
that antenna must be removable.  Just try and unsolder an antenna lead
while hanging off a tower.  I doubt that is their intention and thus
they would certainly allow a removable antenna.

I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having
Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom
consumer router.

For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I
did see that in the document.  I felt it was a very positive step and
one that will help the Industry in general.



On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I certainly DO want to mix and match.  Hell, it's going on all over
anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway.  The mix
and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore.
However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.

This is the specific clause that applies to us:
 The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be
applied to modules.

If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for
professional installation only.

This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the
world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have
changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would
bring almost all of them back into compliance.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

*Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*

CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that 
term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an 
application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ pay 
the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) with 
respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or deployed 
after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 109(b)(1) 
petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more of the 
criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation of at 
least one particular solution that would comply with a particular CALEA 
section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably achievable.” 
Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, the 
carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 109(b)(2), to pay 
the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the solutions proposed in 
the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then either pay the reasonable 
costs of compliance or deny the application.


If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is 
deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and services 
(facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition until those 
facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a 
major modification. When those facilities are replaced, significantly 
upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification, the carrier is 
obligated under the law to become CALEA compliant. The FCC may also 
specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) order granting a carrier’s 
petition the specific date when the replacement, upgrade or modification 
will occur and when CALEA compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s 
obligation to comply with all CALEA requirements is only deferred when 
(1) the FCC grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to 
pay the additional reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the 
CALEA requirements. No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.


Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC 
decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to criteria 
set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are encouraged to 
consult with competent legal and technical counsel before filing such a 
petition. Please note that a filing fee of $5,000.00 is required to 
accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) petitions filed with the FCC. See 
Appendix E entitled “Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting 
Relief: Filing Instructions,” and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second 
Report and Order 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf for 
detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope of 
relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).


More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread David E. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

Hi, Mark's sock puppet who writes like Tim May.

   Members really perceive it will foster increased
 national security.

Anyone who believes that is, at best, delusional.

I assume most of us are already quite aware that the villains have ways
of making traffic difficult or impossible to use, even if it is lawfully
intercepted. CALEA will probably catch a few really dumb crooks, but
that's about it.

It's being done because it's (basically) a law. That's it. If you don't
like it (and I'm sure a lot of folks on this list don't like it, even if
they're hesitant to admit publicly to that fact), try to change it.

Ranting may make people feel better but it doesn't accomplish very much.

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Scott Reed

Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs 
certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional radiators 
that accept intential radiators that are certified.


Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now 
would it. The SBC would be the host device.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP = 
RB = ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional 
questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP 
usable antennae in its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still 
certified if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare 
as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF 
noise being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures 
that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting 
it in a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like 
saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered 
on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use 
in our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  
And if we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some 
of the antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to 
legally use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is 
that very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards 
have certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade 
antennas. I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. 
Also, remember that the software used must limit operation of the 
complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that 
are legal in the U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card 
and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is 
right, not any base, but I would read it that any certified 
base is doable.
I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't 
bothered to find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the 
CM9 card with a set of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for a 
radio card.  Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it 
connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was 
certified with the CM9.


Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base 
unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the 
proper antenna and be good.  The gotcha here is those sections 
of Part 15 I have not yet followed up on.  I am not sure what the 
professional installer stuff is about.


What am I missing or is this good news?

Jack Unger wrote:

Tim,

I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is 
saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any 
base unit.


I think what the FCC is doing is:

1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what 
a legal modular assembly is.


2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data 
inputs, and power supply regulation.


3. Clarifying the definition of what a split modular assembly is.

4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a split 
modular assembly must meet.


Although a motherboard will 

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Peter,

Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000 
application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried 
to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take 
this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have 
heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very 
difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the 
misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Peter R. wrote:

*Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*

CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that 
term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an 
application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ 
pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) 
with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or 
deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 
109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more 
of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation 
of at least one particular solution that would comply with a 
particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably 
achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) 
petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 
109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the 
solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then 
either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.


If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is 
deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and 
services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition 
until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or 
otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are 
replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major 
modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA 
compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) 
order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the 
replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA 
compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with 
all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a 
section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional 
reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements. 
No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.


Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC 
decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to 
criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are 
encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel 
before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of 
$5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) 
petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section 
109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,” 
and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf 
for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope 
of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).


More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki



- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

 Hi, Mark's sock puppet who writes like Tim May.


Oh, please... you guys are getting absurd.I have no sock puppets, and
while I am rather perturbed about the actions going on,  I have tried not to
be personal with anyone over the issues, and my best to not make it about
persons or personalities, but to try to argue about ideas and what WISPA
should do.  You may look with disdain upon the idea of having WISPA get down
and into the trenches of resisting excess regulation, but that's no reason
to start campaigns to personally villify ANYONE.

We should be able to disagree - me included - without insult or personal
affront, here.   I know, due to the emails I get, that a lot of readers on
this list are in considerable agreement on some point or other, but won't
say anything, because they don't want to be the targets of personal attacks.

Let's not let this degenerate.   Certainly, our reputations can be hurt far
more by ill advised personal sniping, while good open and serious debate can
do little but improve relations.



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Scott,

The wireless card and antenna has to be present to be certified with the 
SBC. Without the card and the antenna the SBC cannot be certified as a 
system.


If we would get  an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could 
use it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use.
As I understood it, your initial post was to certify the board and the 
enclosure with no wireless device and antenna in hopes of using any 
combination of cards and antenna. If I misunderstood what you were 
trying to say I apologize.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:

Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the 
SBCs certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional 
radiators that accept intential radiators that are certified.


Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now 
would it. The SBC would be the host device.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP 
= RB = ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts 
what would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements 
of Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional 
questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP 
usable antennae in its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still 
certified if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified 
bare as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in 
whatever enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested 
in RF noise being emitted.  I don't think there are very many 
enclosures that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is 
certified, putting it in a box shouldn't negate the 
certification.  That would be like saying I can't put my laptop in 
a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use 
in our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  
And if we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some 
of the antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to 
legally use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is 
that very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards 
have certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade 
antennas. I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. 
Also, remember that the software used must limit operation of the 
complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that 
are legal in the U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio 
card and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack 
is right, not any base, but I would read it that any 
certified base is doable.
I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't 
bothered to find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the 
CM9 card with a set of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for 
a radio card.  Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as 
it connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was 
certified with the CM9.


Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base 
unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the 
proper antenna and be good.  The gotcha here is those sections 
of Part 15 I have not yet followed up on.  I am not sure what 
the professional installer stuff is about.


What am I missing or is this good news?

Jack 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Jeromie Reeves

On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


as Patrick Henry once said

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



Who is Patrick Henry??

/end sarcasm

Seriously tho, I do not remember that being a quote from him but from
Patrick Stewart. I happen to like:

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when
the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
 As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs
 certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional radiators
 that accept intential radiators that are certified.

 Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

I went back and read some stuff over again...

You can certify a module with either a permanently attached antenna, or one
with a unique connector to a transmitter module.   For instance, it
appears that if you built an AMP, for instance, that was AGC type with
limiting so that it put out constant power and sideband limitations, OOB
limitations, etc, regardless of input, you could certify it with any antenna
that lives within the FCC rules for eirp, etc.   Of course, the complexity
and cost of that would make it into why bother product.Its just that's
what it looks like can be done.

Yes, it appears you can certify a mini-pci card... with either a permanently
attached antenna, or with a unique connector.   Exactly how this unique
connector is enforced, I don't know.   Maybe someone has input on this.
It says that the rf shielding that provides compliance must be part of the
module,  and that the enclosure it's put within (or no enclosure) now makes
no difference.   Is this unique connector required to be just the
connection to the card?   Obviously they expect there to be a pigtail,
because this is meant to allow outside casing to be ... shall we say...
irrelevant to certification.   Do all connectors have to be uniqe, or just
the one to the transmitter module?

Now, as far as SBC's go, I know for a fact that Compex WP54's have passed
FCC certification,  because i have some assemblies from Compex that were
certified with a detachable antenna.   Thus, we know of at least one SBC
that should be easily put in use.

I guess maybe what we need is for Wistron, Ubiquiti, Compex... Maybe someone
who does routinely certify assemblies to submit a mini-pci and cpe type
antenna for approval under these rules.   Or, maybe someone who knows the
relevant decisionmakers to ask if we can.

Rules do now permit equivalent antenna swaps already, and I saw nothing to
prohibit this under these rules.  As for the base station / client issue
I recall some time back, that it was at least the intention of the FCC to
allow the client to use PTP eirp rules while the AP was requierd to remain
at the lower PTMP rules.

Anyone remember the ultimate outcome of those inquiries?





 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Scott,
 
  The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now
  would it. The SBC would be the host device.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
  Scott Reed wrote:
  Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the
  laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP =
  RB = ???
 
  Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Scott,
 
  In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
  transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what
  would you be certifying exactly?
 
  As quoted from said document;
 
  The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of
  Section 15.203
  and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or
  employ a “unique”
  antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the
  antenna, including the
  cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the
  module, either at
  the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive
  change. The
  “professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be
  applied to modules.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  Scott Reed wrote:
  And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card
  vendor is certified with.
 
  From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional
  questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP
  usable antennae in its certification then:
  1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC
  certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
  2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still
  certified if it is in a box?
 
  Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare
  as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever
  enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF
  noise being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures
  that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting
  it in a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like
  saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered
  on.
 
  If this is the case, getting some 

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
But why not get a SBC certified as a motherboard, like a MSI, Asus, etc? 
The power supply (DC 12V) is already certified most of the time, and the 
case itself, how many times have you seen a Foxconn or Antec case with no 
power supply have a sticker on it in the first place?


So SBC=motherboard, case=case w/o power supply, power supply = FCC cert wall 
adapter, and REGARDLESS of the accessories, a SBC would be no different than 
a garden variety clone PC.


- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s 
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval




Scott,

The wireless card and antenna has to be present to be certified with the 
SBC. Without the card and the antenna the SBC cannot be certified as a 
system.


If we would get  an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could use 
it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use.
As I understood it, your initial post was to certify the board and the 
enclosure with no wireless device and antenna in hopes of using any 
combination of cards and antenna. If I misunderstood what you were trying 
to say I apologize.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:

Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs 
certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional radiators 
that accept intential radiators that are certified.


Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now 
would it. The SBC would be the host device.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP = 
RB = ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. 
If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in 
its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified 
if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare 
as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise 
being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures that 
increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in 
a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like saying 
I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use in 
our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And if 
we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the 
antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally 
use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that 
very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have 
certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. 
I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember 
that the software used must limit operation of the complete system 
only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the 
U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card 
and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is 
right, not any 

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I'm a bit confused, because I thougth the FCC specifically stated that there
is no longer any funds, nor are any applications under those sections
accepted anymore.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf

Relevant paragraph:

2. More generally, we herein specify mechanisms to ensure that
telecommunications

carriers comply with CALEA. Specifically, under the express terms of the
statute, all carriers subject to

CALEA are obliged to become CALEA-compliant. We find that sections 107(c)
and 109(b) of CALEA

provide only limited and temporary relief from compliance requirements, and
that they are

complementary provisions that serve different purposes, which are,
respectively: (1) extension of the

CALEA section 103 compliance deadline for equipment, facility, or service
deployed before October 25,

1998; and (2) recovery of CALEA-imposed costs.







- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief


 Peter,

 Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
 application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried
 to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take
 this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have
 heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very
 difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the
 misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 Peter R. wrote:
  *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*
 
  CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that
  term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an
  application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ
  pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief)
  with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or
  deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section
  109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more
  of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation
  of at least one particular solution that would comply with a
  particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably
  achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1)
  petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section
  109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the
  solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then
  either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.
 
  If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is
  deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and
  services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition
  until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or
  otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are
  replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major
  modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA
  compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the
  replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA
  compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with
  all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a
  section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional
  reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements.
  No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.
 
  Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC
  decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to
  criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are
  encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel
  before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of
  $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section
  109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,”
  and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
  for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope
  of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).
 
  More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

 -- 
 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 Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato
On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public, 
they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to 
impliment calea and they have a solution for that.




Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Peter,

Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000 
application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried 
to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take 
this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have 
heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very 
difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the 
misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Peter R. wrote:

*Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*

CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that 
term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an 
application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ 
pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) 
with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or 
deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 
109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more 
of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation 
of at least one particular solution that would comply with a 
particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably 
achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) 
petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 
109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the 
solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then 
either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.


If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is 
deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and 
services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition 
until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or 
otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are 
replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major 
modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA 
compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) 
order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the 
replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA 
compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with 
all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a 
section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional 
reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements. 
No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.


Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC 
decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to 
criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are 
encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel 
before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of 
$5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) 
petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section 
109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,” 
and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf 
for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope 
of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).


More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


as Patrick Henry once said

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



Who is Patrick Henry??



Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Lemmings Followup

2007-04-26 Thread maybemenot
Mr. Koskenmaki,
I am sorry to see that you felt a flame was directed upon you. 

Personally, I take the reference to Tim May as an undeserved 
complement. But Tim's works do pre-date a lot of the younger crowd. 
BTW, Tim's manifesto is well worthy of the few minutes of time it 
will take anyone interested to track down and read.

First, I want to make it clear that my reason for anonymity has 
everything to do with not wishing my business related affiliations 
to be impacted by these posts. I wish it were not so, but the 
reality is that I do not enjoy separation of work life from 
personal life in this list.

Ok, back to the point, Marlon asked, what should we be doing.

EXCELLENT question.

SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided 
to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.
2) As a group, inform the subs what we are doing so they are not in 
the dark and clueless. Try to recruit their support.
3) Present to the press the WISPA member total subs count, and ask 
for the FCC / Gov to really evaluate the economic impact to GDP per 
state / national level that shutting off wisps would result in.
4) Also, notify NCTA to please issue a revised broadband survey 
report with wisp networks removed, thus likely bring the USA from 
30th in the world to 40th or 50th in broadband deployment. This MAY 
have other consequences such as the world bank / OECD may feel 
obligated to stick their noses into the USA political processes.
5) Most IMPORTANTLY... Expend resources to properly investigate, 
report, and expose the apparent impropriety that exists in telco / 
cableco lobby connections to the DOJ and SEC.
6) Begin in an honest effort to negotiate / create secured WIRELESS 
and/or wholly operator owned wired interconnects amongst WISPA/CLEC 
networks.
7) Publish ideas for encouraging CO-OP style community network 
ownership.
 
I feel like the YOKE placed upon WISPs by CALEA compliance 
requirements is misplaced. Simply put, IMHO, it has been leveraged 
as a tool to exercise control over your growth. In fact to stifle 
that growth.

I have said enough and my real objective has been accomplished. 
Signing off now, for good. Thanks to all for your efforts as WISPs 
and as WISPA members. 

To Marlon, Scriv, Dave, your efforts and dedication have made this 
much bigger than I initially thought it could be. Perhaps though, 
it is time to increase the size of the effort overall and approach 
the CLEC groups (Comptel/Ascent) members to see if there may be a 
long term relation which can be formed as an effort to disrupt the 
reformation of monopolistic practices in the communication systems. 
I know we can present acceptable options to the American Public at 
large, and it must start with education, press, and getting the 
options to be understood.

If WISPA forms a committee for integrating with CLECs, I will be 
keeping watch of your progress, and gladly contribute to said 
committee from a distance.

Peace and Freedom,
XXX

--
Free health insurance quotes. Great rates for individuals and families.  Click 
Now.
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1QUc7pPR9xhMKLHJzdlkTL6iG9/

-- 
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 Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief


 On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
 they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to
 impliment calea and they have a solution for that.

Yes, you get to submit to them ALL of your financial data, including your
ability to borrow, and all state and federal money avaialble...

Ohhh...and the fee for filing that you can't afford to comply is $5200, and
they'll decide whether or not you can afford it...   but you still pay the
fee either way.








 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Peter,
 
  Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
  application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried
  to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take
  this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have
  heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very
  difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the
  misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  Peter R. wrote:
  *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*
 
  CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that
  term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an
  application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ
  pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief)
  with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or
  deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section
  109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more
  of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation
  of at least one particular solution that would comply with a
  particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably
  achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1)
  petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section
  109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the
  solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then
  either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.
 
  If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is
  deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and
  services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition
  until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or
  otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are
  replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major
  modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA
  compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the
  replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA
  compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with
  all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a
  section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional
  reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements.
  No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.
 
  Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC
  decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to
  criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are
  encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel
  before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of
  $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section
  109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,”
  and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
  for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope
  of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).
 
  More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/
 

 -- 
 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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Jeromie Reeves

On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 as Patrick Henry once said

 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


 Who is Patrick Henry??


Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?



Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Jory Privett
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of them 
about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to do with 
it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to make the 
effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What paperwork needs to 
be done to protect each company? How do you control throughput to and from 
each network and routing issues?  Any help her would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.

Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having
to make some kind of change in the way they do business.

I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they
can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such
a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a
handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with more
operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators
combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they
would be required to do.




- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Jeromie Reeves wrote:
   On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   as Patrick Henry once said
  
   Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
  
  
   Who is Patrick Henry??
  
 
  Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?


 Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
 The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
 not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).
 -- 
 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] Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread Sam Tetherow

David E. Smith wrote:

Jory Privett wrote:
  

I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and
graphing.



WhatsUp will do the monitoring and notifications, but at least the
version I've got doesn't do graphing. (In all fairness, it's an older
version, and MRTG does graphing just fine.)

Nagios works, but is a royal PITA to set up.
  


Maybe I just do really simple stuff, or maybe I'm just twisted, but I 
never found nagios to be all the complicated to setup.  Installed from 
package, edited hosts.cfg and services.cfg and you are good to go.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Haven't worked with most of the others you mentioned.

I'm seriously getting into Mikrotik's The Dude software, actually. I
don't think it has an SMS interface, but it can send email (and if your
goal is to get the message to a cell phone, most carriers can receive
email and convert it to a text message). It combines monitoring and
graphing in one really spiffy interface. Oh, and it's free, which is
always an important criterion for WISP operations :D

David Smith
MVN.net
  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Steve
Precisely..  Misquote was intentional.;)   Patrick Henry never would
have said such diabolical words.  Just wanted to get the gears turning
for those who remember what Patrick /really/ said!

--

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jeromie Reeves wrote:
  On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  as Patrick Henry once said
 
  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
 
 
  Who is Patrick Henry??
 

 Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?


 Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
 The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
 not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Mark,

At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about 
the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. 
But to be honest with you this is getting old.
We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with 
these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil 
disobedience will work in this case not with the small
number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion 
keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of 
existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.

Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having
to make some kind of change in the way they do business.

I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they
can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such
a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a
handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with more
operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators
combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they
would be required to do.




- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


  

On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Jeromie Reeves wrote:
  

On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


as Patrick Henry once said

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

  

Who is Patrick Henry??



Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?
  

Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).
--
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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Jory,

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of 
them about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything 
to do with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I 
wanted to make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  
What paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you 
control throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any 
help her would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread Russ Kreigh

We primarily use:

Whats Up Gold Premium v11 
Solarwinds Orion
Cacti
Visualpulse


For anyone who is looking at monitoring infrastructure and their individual
customers, I would strongly suggest taking a look at AdRem NetCrunch.

The new version (v11) of WhatsUp Gold has really come around, it's finally
mature enough to be put in the same league as Openview, it has lots of new
graphing and reporting features. 

Thanks,

Russ Kreigh
Network Engineer
OnlyInternet.Net Broadband  Wireless
Supernova Technologies
Office: (800) 363-0989
Direct: (260) 827-2486
Fax:(260) 824-9624
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oibw.net






-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing

David E. Smith wrote:
 Jory Privett wrote:
   
 I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and 
 graphing.
 

 WhatsUp will do the monitoring and notifications, but at least the 
 version I've got doesn't do graphing. (In all fairness, it's an older 
 version, and MRTG does graphing just fine.)

 Nagios works, but is a royal PITA to set up.
   

Maybe I just do really simple stuff, or maybe I'm just twisted, but I never
found nagios to be all the complicated to setup.  Installed from package,
edited hosts.cfg and services.cfg and you are good to go.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
 Haven't worked with most of the others you mentioned.

 I'm seriously getting into Mikrotik's The Dude software, actually. I 
 don't think it has an SMS interface, but it can send email (and if 
 your goal is to get the message to a cell phone, most carriers can 
 receive email and convert it to a text message). It combines 
 monitoring and graphing in one really spiffy interface. Oh, and it's 
 free, which is always an important criterion for WISP operations :D

 David Smith
 MVN.net
   

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Hammett
If they're network peering, they'd be connecting each other's networks 
together to exchange local traffic that way.  They could also have an 
alliance where if someone's Internet feeds go out, they use another WISP's 
Internet feed until restoration.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Jory,

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of them 
about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to do 
with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to 
make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What 
paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you control 
throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her 
would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS



--
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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Jory Privett
I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same area I 
know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was just wanting 
to establish a link to one or more of them and start routing (BGP most 
likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  This would allow each to 
have more capacity and redundancy and not have to pay any large amount for 
it.  I know all of the big players do it and it is the basic fabric the 
internet is made of.  I was just wondering if any WISPs do it and how?


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Jory,

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of them 
about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to do 
with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to 
make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What 
paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you control 
throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her 
would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS



--
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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.
It's more likely that you would get 100 maximum to say I can't comply, 
since most won't want to make themselves known.


And those 100 would be contacted.

Cripes only a few hundred filled out the 477... you think a few thousand 
would light a bonfire?



Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.

Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having
to make some kind of change in the way they do business.

I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they
can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such
a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a
handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with more
operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators
combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they
would be required to do.
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

Mr. Hush,

Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided 
to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.


Any volunteers to write and distribute this Press Release?

2) As a group, inform the subs what we are doing so they are not in 
the dark and clueless. Try to recruit their support.


Tell your customers that they are no longer getting Internet?

3) Present to the press the WISPA member total subs count, and ask 
for the FCC / Gov to really evaluate the economic impact to GDP per 
state / national level that shutting off wisps would result in.


No one knows this number, but you can take the count from the 477 forms.
It was about 2% right?

4) Also, notify NCTA to please issue a revised broadband survey 
report with wisp networks removed, thus likely bring the USA from 
30th in the world to 40th or 50th in broadband deployment. This MAY 
have other consequences such as the world bank / OECD may feel 
obligated to stick their noses into the USA political processes.


2-3% won't matter

5) Most IMPORTANTLY... Expend resources to properly investigate, 
report, and expose the apparent impropriety that exists in telco / 
cableco lobby connections to the DOJ and SEC.


Budget???

6) Begin in an honest effort to negotiate / create secured WIRELESS 
and/or wholly operator owned wired interconnects amongst WISPA/CLEC 
networks.


??

7) Publish ideas for encouraging CO-OP style community network 
ownership.


??

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Outdoor rated cable

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Hammett
I last asked a couple years ago.  What does everyone recommend for sources of 
outdoor rated non-burial cable for installations?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Jeromie Reeves

You would classically arrange a peering agreement. You hand each other
a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP table. You each use
the link like another upstream provider, balancing routes vs capacity
vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a set cost per bit
transfered and the groups settle up monthly. The main problem I see is
one entity will be at a disadvantage then the other due to size. Say
isp A has 2 peers, the other has 4. That means isp B will need isp
A's links less then B needs A's. There is a very (in)famous case of
exactly that (AOL and Cogent). How do you value your peering abilities
vs those of someone else, with more or less peers and more or less
capacity.


On 4/26/07, Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same area I
know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was just wanting
to establish a link to one or more of them and start routing (BGP most
likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  This would allow each to
have more capacity and redundancy and not have to pay any large amount for
it.  I know all of the big players do it and it is the basic fabric the
internet is made of.  I was just wondering if any WISPs do it and how?

Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 Jory,

 I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your
 area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Jory Privett wrote:
 There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of them
 about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to do
 with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to
 make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What
 paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you control
 throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her
 would be greatly appreciated.

 Jory Privett
 WCCS


 --
 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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Travis Johnson
My personal concern would be turning over my IP block to my competition. 
They would have to have enough control to allow BGP routes from their 
upstream. Technically they could misconfigure a router accidentally and 
take your entire network down. :(


Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:
If they're network peering, they'd be connecting each other's networks 
together to exchange local traffic that way.  They could also have an 
alliance where if someone's Internet feeds go out, they use another 
WISP's Internet feed until restoration.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Jory,

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of 
them about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want 
anything to do with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other 
way but I wanted to make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type 
of thing?  What paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? 
How do you control throughput to and from each network and routing 
issues?  Any help her would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS



--
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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Steve, well you did get me thinking about him (and my best remembered
quote from him).


On 4/26/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

It's more likely that you would get 100 maximum to say I can't comply,
since most won't want to make themselves known.

And those 100 would be contacted.

Cripes only a few hundred filled out the 477... you think a few thousand
would light a bonfire?


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.

Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having
to make some kind of change in the way they do business.

I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they
can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such
a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a
handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with more
operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators
combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they
would be required to do.


--
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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Felix A. Lopez
Is the issue one of cost where the WISP A does not
have budget for additonal servers/network analytics
tools, hardware infrastructure?  What problem are you
trying to solve?  

Felix
--- Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You would classically arrange a peering agreement.
 You hand each other
 a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP
 table. You each use
 the link like another upstream provider, balancing
 routes vs capacity
 vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a
 set cost per bit
 transfered and the groups settle up monthly. The
 main problem I see is
 one entity will be at a disadvantage then the other
 due to size. Say
 isp A has 2 peers, the other has 4. That means isp B
 will need isp
 A's links less then B needs A's. There is a very
 (in)famous case of
 exactly that (AOL and Cogent). How do you value your
 peering abilities
 vs those of someone else, with more or less peers
 and more or less
 capacity.
 
 
 On 4/26/07, Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my
 network.  In the  same area I
  know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth
 also.  I was just wanting
  to establish a link to one or more of them and
 start routing (BGP most
  likely) and pass traffic over each others network.
  This would allow each to
  have more capacity and redundancy and not have to
 pay any large amount for
  it.  I know all of the big players do it and it is
 the basic fabric the
  internet is made of.  I was just wondering if any
 WISPs do it and how?
 
  Jory Privett
  WCCS
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
 
 
   Jory,
  
   I am not sure what you are trying to do with the
 other WISP's in your
   area. Can you a little more clear on what you
 are thinking of?
  
   Regards,
   Dawn DiPietro
  
   Jory Privett wrote:
   There are several WISP in my area I was 
 wanting to talk to some of them
   about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will
 not want anything to do
   with it since they refuse to co-operate in any
 other way but I wanted to
   make the effort.  Has anyone else done this
 type of thing?  What
   paperwork needs to be done to protect each
 company? How do you control
   throughput to and from each network and routing
 issues?  Any help her
   would be greatly appreciated.
  
   Jory Privett
   WCCS
  
  
   --
   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/
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Travis Johnson
There are many issues involved... we used to peer with one of our 
competitors in the area. It worked pretty well, but honestly wasn't 
worth the extra time and efforts for what it actually saved in 
bandwidth, etc.


Now, if you could find a neutral location to bring in a bigger pipe, and 
then everyone share from that location, you may have something. For 
me, I would never allow my IP block to be controlled by anyone other 
than me. Routing mistakes do happen, and it could cause you downtime or 
routing problems without your knowledge or control.


Travis
Microserv

Jory Privett wrote:
I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same 
area I know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was 
just wanting to establish a link to one or more of them and start 
routing (BGP most likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  
This would allow each to have more capacity and redundancy and not 
have to pay any large amount for it.  I know all of the big players do 
it and it is the basic fabric the internet is made of.  I was just 
wondering if any WISPs do it and how?


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Jory,

I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of 
them about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want 
anything to do with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other 
way but I wanted to make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type 
of thing?  What paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? 
How do you control throughput to and from each network and routing 
issues?  Any help her would be greatly appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS



--
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] Outdoor rated cable

2007-04-26 Thread Sam Tetherow
I get mine from either ElectroComm or Wisp-Router for about $100/1000'.  
The biggest problem I have had for the past 12-18 months is finding 
people with stuff in stock when  I need it.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Mike Hammett wrote:

I last asked a couple years ago.  What does everyone recommend for sources of 
outdoor rated non-burial cable for installations?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

Wow.  I guess the title really is right.

When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could join
WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks,  free networks,
big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community,
neighborhood, or even just block.

Now we've decided that the only people who count are the  big guys.   The
professionals?  A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't file
477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was no
time at all.   What will happen when the next mandate comes?   Will you
start referencing the scores of WISP's?   After the next one will it be
the dozens?

Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us.

I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal, hobby,
free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP.   So, we just
toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us?  You
KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by
CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to assist
law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly
getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light.

So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via wireless
because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality?   I don't
advocate lying to anyone.  If you can, by george, file you can.  But for the
rest of us..  File you can't.   And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE 15-20K
network operators to do the same.   Create the logjam that teaches
regulators when they've done wrong.   This is the most basic tenet of
democracy I can think of.   There is no holiness to the government or to
law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are subject
to negotiation and resistance by the governed.

I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network.   But,
I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we stick
together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back off
and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably comply.
As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we can!

And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be?   oh, he was a
renegade?   That looks like what you all want to do.  AT least the public
list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP industry
from exinction.Sheesh.   Who cares about that radical issue?

I have written over and over and over that this isn't about me, nor my views
on the right or wrong... but about our industry and DEFENDING IT.And it
appears the biggest fight WISPA wants to have is the one to shut up those
who want to save their own skin, plus that of their fellow intrepid
operators.

I would encourage you to sit down and read the last FCC published document
on the topic of CALEA.  You need to understand that what we are supposedly
working on as compliance is not fixed AT ALL.  Just becoming presently
compliant is not a gauranteed long term or future solution.   The FCC
reserves the right to mandate PRECISELY what we are doing, and even in the
future to demand certification of the equipment we use.  They are resisting
that now, but but as history shows and the fact that they're trying to force
CALEA compliance on us, that they're as bendable as a willow in the wind.
This is not, as some people are attempting to portray it a minor, one time
bump in the road.   It's going to get bigger and it's going to continue to
be a source of heartburn even for those who can comply now.

All of this is a trial run (my words, not theirs) to see how well it
works.  If the results...after we re-build, restructure, or in some cases,
do very little... aren't satisfactory, they can revisit and impose HUGE
mandates that would bury pretty much every WISP except perhaps a few of the
multi-million dollar ones.   And that revisit is not determined by the
FCC's opinion, it's going to be in consultation with the DOJ and FBI, who
wanted MUCH more, and may very well get MUCH more, unless we start making
the case this is bad law, policy, and the wrong approach.

We cannot consider CALEA issues dealt with and just go back to business as
usual, because the deadline passes and we have something that works under
the guidelines.   I predict that the deadline will pass and only those who
have a c ontract with a TTP and a couple of router manufacturers will
actually have full compliance.   That will be only some of the hundreds
we're talking about right now.I further predict that in a year or two,
further mandates about CALEA will come along.   These will be mandates on
equipment providers.  And they will be attempting to explain how CALEA
compliance will occur using what they sell.   We'll see most of what's out
there vanish almost overnight, with only a few remaining 

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
At one time, a local operator here in the valley tried to set this up, not
with BGP and classic peering, but simple static routing to route just that
ISP's clients traffic to them.Thus, traffic bound for each other went
through a dedicated pipe.   of course, this was simple and cheap, back when
everyone was connected via frame relay and adding a PVC wasn't expensive or
difficult.

It would be slightly more complex for WISP's to do this, but for some, it
might save a bit of bandwidth through the provider.

I don't really think there's all that much in terms of percentage, of
traffic from residential or even SOHO customes to other residential / soho
customers, so I don't see much value in that.

instead, it might seem a bit more... useful?... to instead do classic
peering with each other, all at a fixed per-gig transfer or per KByte flow
charge for traffic.   If we both have a lot of traffic, but it's equal to me
from you and to you from me, then the charges cancel each other.It would
also be a means of adding redundancy to your own network, and decreased
downtime, better paths (lower hop counts).




- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 You would classically arrange a peering agreement. You hand each other
 a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP table. You each use
 the link like another upstream provider, balancing routes vs capacity
 vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a set cost per bit
 transfered and the groups settle up monthly. The main problem I see is
 one entity will be at a disadvantage then the other due to size. Say
 isp A has 2 peers, the other has 4. That means isp B will need isp
 A's links less then B needs A's. There is a very (in)famous case of
 exactly that (AOL and Cogent). How do you value your peering abilities
 vs those of someone else, with more or less peers and more or less
 capacity.


 On 4/26/07, Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same
area I
  know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was just
wanting
  to establish a link to one or more of them and start routing (BGP most
  likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  This would allow
each to
  have more capacity and redundancy and not have to pay any large amount
for
  it.  I know all of the big players do it and it is the basic fabric the
  internet is made of.  I was just wondering if any WISPs do it and how?
 
  Jory Privett
  WCCS
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
 
 
   Jory,
  
   I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your
   area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?
  
   Regards,
   Dawn DiPietro
  
   Jory Privett wrote:
   There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of
them
   about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to
do
   with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted
to
   make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What
   paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you
control
   throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her
   would be greatly appreciated.
  
   Jory Privett
   WCCS
  
  
   --
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
 
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Brad Belton
This is exactly what we have done.  We brought two DS3's out to a rural area
and have broken off parts of that bandwidth to other ISPs.  In fact as I
type we have failed over part of one ISP's network over a geographically
diverse third backhaul we have back into town.  

I believe we extended an offer to Jory last year or maybe even longer ago
than that, but somewhere along the line the idea stalled.

We are certainly interested in pursuing this again as long as there is a
clear frequency and target market understanding.  I think that might have
been the stumbling block the last go around.  As you've stated there are
already several ISPs in the market and there isn't any reason they should
need to step on each other's toes.  There is plenty of business to go around
as long as everyone is on the same page.  I've slept since then, so I might
be mistaken as to why the first attempt didn't play out.

Jory, I'm out of the office right now, but feel free to contact be directly
if you are interested.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:29 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

There are many issues involved... we used to peer with one of our 
competitors in the area. It worked pretty well, but honestly wasn't 
worth the extra time and efforts for what it actually saved in 
bandwidth, etc.

Now, if you could find a neutral location to bring in a bigger pipe, and 
then everyone share from that location, you may have something. For 
me, I would never allow my IP block to be controlled by anyone other 
than me. Routing mistakes do happen, and it could cause you downtime or 
routing problems without your knowledge or control.

Travis
Microserv

Jory Privett wrote:
 I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same 
 area I know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was 
 just wanting to establish a link to one or more of them and start 
 routing (BGP most likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  
 This would allow each to have more capacity and redundancy and not 
 have to pay any large amount for it.  I know all of the big players do 
 it and it is the basic fabric the internet is made of.  I was just 
 wondering if any WISPs do it and how?

 Jory Privett
 WCCS

 - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 Jory,

 I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your 
 area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Jory Privett wrote:
 There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of 
 them about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want 
 anything to do with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other 
 way but I wanted to make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type 
 of thing?  What paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? 
 How do you control throughput to and from each network and routing 
 issues?  Any help her would be greatly appreciated.

 Jory Privett
 WCCS


 -- 
 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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark McElvy
I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.

Mark McElvy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

Mark,

At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about 
the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. 
But to be honest with you this is getting old.
We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with 
these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil 
disobedience will work in this case not with the small
number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion 
keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of 
existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions


 Mr. Hush,

 Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

 SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
 1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided
 to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.

 Any volunteers to write and distribute this Press Release?

Nobody can write for WISPA except WISPA people, either authorized or
designated by management.


 2) As a group, inform the subs what we are doing so they are not in
 the dark and clueless. Try to recruit their support.

 Tell your customers that they are no longer getting Internet?

Naw, write a letter to your subs.

Dear customer,  I started delivering affordable broadband several years
ago, in a free and open environment, where the services I offer were not
restricted nor taxed, nor controlled by any state or federal regulatory
agency.   Recently, the FCC has reversed this trend, and has mandated that I
provide the ability to tap and deeply examine, and then provide requested
information from the traffic that travels to your home / office / computer /
etc.   The costs of this are as yet unknown, and my ability to provide you
affordable broadband is in serious jeopardy.   While assisting law
enforcement's legitemate need to track down criminal, criminal activity, and
other hazards to our community and / or nation is not objectionable to us,
and we in fact wish to help where we can,  the FCC has decided that
providers will bear the costs of compliance with as yet undetermined
requirements.   This mandate upon my business could very well put me out of
business with no notice whatsoever, and leave you without service
unexpectedly.

I would encourage you to read the FCC's comments and rules at www.fcc.gov
and to contact your representatives at the federal level and the FCC to ask
why your internet service must be placed under the control of the federal
government, putting your ability to get affordable broadband at risk.
There are some options, one is to simply duck the law, and hope enforcment
never catches us.   Another is just to pre-emptively shut down and find
other means of earning a living, but losing all my investment, time, and the
jobs my business creates.  Yet another option is to estimate the cost of
compliance and assess you a one time fee for capital expenditures, since we
lack the ready capital to buy the very expensive solutions currently in
existence, or to finance this with a permanent CALEA surcharge on top of our
normal service charges.These fees could range from $50 to $500 dollars
one time, or $5 to $15 per month for continuing compliance costs.

The federal government long ago used your tax dollars to pay for the the
telephone companies to be compliant with CALEA, but since WISP's are small
business, we have no multi-million dollar lobbyist industry in Washington DC
to protect us from arbitrary mandates and regulations.

This pattern of regulation and usurping the ability of small business to
provide necessary services is a benefit to the large corporate entities like
telephone companies and cable companies who, if small businesses like us are
force into non-competitive price structures or just out of business, will
have no competition, allowing prices for internet to spiral out of control.


 3) Present to the press the WISPA member total subs count, and ask
 for the FCC / Gov to really evaluate the economic impact to GDP per
 state / national level that shutting off wisps would result in.

 No one knows this number, but you can take the count from the 477 forms.
 It was about 2% right?

Ahh, we're dead anyway.  Might as well call it 0%, right?


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Here, read this.  it's old, but it's EFF's take on CALEA.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/

If you take the time and read this through (it's HOURS)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf

You'll notice that the FCC readily admits it cannot resolve the technical
conflicts between law written for POTS interception and digital packet
network monitoring.

It is expecting that precedent and our willingness to just throw up our
hands and let them have it will eventually settle those conflicts for it,
so it will not have to defend the almost incomprehensible dichotomy of POTS
telephone taps and internet data interception.




- Original Message - 
From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
 Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
 business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.

 Mark McElvy

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Mark,

So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations 
into place?


The FCC is not in place to make life easy for you it is there to protect 
the airwaves from being polluted from every guy that knows something 
about wireless and slapping computers together.
Sorry if this sounds a little crude but with all the discussion lately 
the attitude seems to be make it easy for me so I can be a player and 
handicap the competition. This does not make it an even
playing field in any way shape or form. The Telcos/Cableco's have to be 
compliant as does the little guy.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Mark McElvy wrote:

I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.

Mark McElvy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

Mark,

At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about 
the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. 
But to be honest with you this is getting old.
We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with 
these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil 
disobedience will work in this case not with the small
number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion 
keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of 
existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Mark,

Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution. 
I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and 
defending your position.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

Wow.  I guess the title really is right.

When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could join
WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks,  free networks,
big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community,
neighborhood, or even just block.

Now we've decided that the only people who count are the  big guys.   The
professionals?  A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't file
477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was no
time at all.   What will happen when the next mandate comes?   Will you
start referencing the scores of WISP's?   After the next one will it be
the dozens?

Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us.

I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal, hobby,
free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP.   So, we just
toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us?  You
KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by
CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to assist
law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly
getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light.

So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via wireless
because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality?   I don't
advocate lying to anyone.  If you can, by george, file you can.  But for the
rest of us..  File you can't.   And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE 15-20K
network operators to do the same.   Create the logjam that teaches
regulators when they've done wrong.   This is the most basic tenet of
democracy I can think of.   There is no holiness to the government or to
law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are subject
to negotiation and resistance by the governed.

I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network.   But,
I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we stick
together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back off
and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably comply.
As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we can!

And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be?   oh, he was a
renegade?   That looks like what you all want to do.  AT least the public
list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP industry
from exinction.Sheesh.   Who cares about that radical issue?

I have written over and over and over that this isn't about me, nor my views
on the right or wrong... but about our industry and DEFENDING IT.And it
appears the biggest fight WISPA wants to have is the one to shut up those
who want to save their own skin, plus that of their fellow intrepid
operators.

I would encourage you to sit down and read the last FCC published document
on the topic of CALEA.  You need to understand that what we are supposedly
working on as compliance is not fixed AT ALL.  Just becoming presently
compliant is not a gauranteed long term or future solution.   The FCC
reserves the right to mandate PRECISELY what we are doing, and even in the
future to demand certification of the equipment we use.  They are resisting
that now, but but as history shows and the fact that they're trying to force
CALEA compliance on us, that they're as bendable as a willow in the wind.
This is not, as some people are attempting to portray it a minor, one time
bump in the road.   It's going to get bigger and it's going to continue to
be a source of heartburn even for those who can comply now.

All of this is a trial run (my words, not theirs) to see how well it
works.  If the results...after we re-build, restructure, or in some cases,
do very little... aren't satisfactory, they can revisit and impose HUGE
mandates that would bury pretty much every WISP except perhaps a few of the
multi-million dollar ones.   And that revisit is not determined by the
FCC's opinion, it's going to be in consultation with the DOJ and FBI, who
wanted MUCH more, and may very well get MUCH more, unless we start making
the case this is bad law, policy, and the wrong approach.

We cannot consider CALEA issues dealt with and just go back to business as
usual, because the deadline passes and we have something that works under
the guidelines.   I predict that the deadline will pass and only those who
have a c ontract with a TTP and a couple of router manufacturers will
actually have full compliance.   That will be only some of the hundreds
we're talking about right now.I further predict that in a year or two,
further mandates about CALEA will come along.   These 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 Mark,

 So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations
 into place?

No, it means I thumb my nose at them when they come along and tell me I have
do something for them...for free.


 The FCC is not in place to make life easy for you it is there to protect
 the airwaves from being polluted from every guy that knows something
 about wireless and slapping computers together.

Wrong.  It is there to properly regulate the use of a public commodity
(spectrum) for the best service to the public.

 Sorry if this sounds a little crude but with all the discussion lately
 the attitude seems to be make it easy for me so I can be a player and
 handicap the competition. This does not make it an even
 playing field in any way shape or form. The Telcos/Cableco's have to be
 compliant as does the little guy.

They can go whine all the want.

I'm sticking up for me.  Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter who else gets
wronged.




 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Mark McElvy wrote:
  I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
  Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
  business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.
 
  Mark McElvy
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:44 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
 
  Mark,
 
  At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about
  the government and following the laws put in place for your protection.
  But to be honest with you this is getting old.
  We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with
  these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil
  disobedience will work in this case not with the small
  number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion
  keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of
  existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 

 -- 
 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] Network Monitoring and Graphing

2007-04-26 Thread Jim Stout
I run PRTG Traffic Grapher from Paessler (www.paessler.com) and Servers 
Alive (www.woodstone.nu/salive/) for notification.  They both do 
notification but I started with Servers Alive because it's freeware and it 
works.


Jim Stout
LTO Communications, LLC
15701 Henry Andrews Dr
Pleasant Hill, MO 64080
(816) 305-1076 - Mobile
(816) 497-0033 - Pager

- Original Message - 
From: Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing


I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and 
graphing.  I have used  MRTG for graphing before.  I have looked at 
WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before.  I want to be able to graph traffic on 
network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment.  I 
also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or 
preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus.   I 
am curious what others use for this type of application, what they 
like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else.


Thank you,

Jory Privett
WCCS

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?


 Mark,

 Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution.
 I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and
 defending your position.

Who said to be 'civil disobedient'?   THAT is what's going on with thousands
now.  I'm suggesting that we recruit those hundreds...errr..thousands to
file and say that they cannot comply.   This is not civil disobedience, this
is changing the POV of people who made bad policy.

They can't possibly undertake the task of taking down thousands of tiny
networks, which is what would change policies and possibly get pretty much
all of us exempted or changed to some non-mandated terms.

Oh, WISPA can just toss them to the wolves and lose absolutely ANY chance of
getting them into membership and support.These people ask what's the
value in being a member... and if all WISPA's going to do is toss them
under the bus, you might as well write off the vast majority of smaller
network operators from EVER supporting WISPA in any meaningful fashion.
Talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face...

Cripes... I've been trying to argue that WISPA is throwing away a HUGE
opportunity by not defending the industry as a whole, and is, in effect,
alienating the very people it needs to become a much more effective
organization.  There are NOT thousands of big, profitable WISP's.   There
ARE thousands of  tiny network operators, community networks, neighborhood
networks, and other small ventures that simply cannot go it alone and be
compliant, but if we could give them a reason... if we ACTUALLY fought for
them,  then we might create a reason they'd support us.   Instead, all we
see is intangible promises of 'we'll do what we can' and we can't resist so
shut up and go die quietly.

Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required
compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA
nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf,
educate everyone, and try some give and take with the regulators.

In other words...




 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  Wow.  I guess the title really is right.
 
  When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could
join
  WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks,  free
networks,
  big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
  network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community,
  neighborhood, or even just block.
 
  Now we've decided that the only people who count are the  big guys.
The
  professionals?  A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't
file
  477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was
no
  time at all.   What will happen when the next mandate comes?   Will you
  start referencing the scores of WISP's?   After the next one will it
be
  the dozens?
 
  Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us.
 
  I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal,
hobby,
  free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP.   So, we
just
  toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us?
You
  KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by
  CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to
assist
  law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly
  getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light.
 
  So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via
wireless
  because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality?   I
don't
  advocate lying to anyone.  If you can, by george, file you can.  But for
the
  rest of us..  File you can't.   And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE
15-20K
  network operators to do the same.   Create the logjam that teaches
  regulators when they've done wrong.   This is the most basic tenet of
  democracy I can think of.   There is no holiness to the government or
to
  law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are
subject
  to negotiation and resistance by the governed.
 
  I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network.   But,
  I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we
stick
  together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back
off
  and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably
comply.
  As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we
can!
 
  And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be?   oh, he was a
  renegade?   That looks like what you all want to do.  AT least the
public
  list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP
industry
  from exinction.Sheesh.   Who cares about 

Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

Mark and Mark,

Small business over-regulation is a big problem. That is what the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy is supposed to fight for. But alas with budget cuts 
and mismanagement, no help there... but you might want to petition them 
anyway.


Bearhill explained that the FCC wanted the Industry to come up with a 
Broadband Standard. (And it did last month: ATIS T1.IAS).


Bearhill also pointed out that besides the up to $10,000 per day fine 
for every day that you can implement the subpoena, there is a fine in 
place for businesses that do not file compliance forms and who are not 
trying to be compliant. Those fines can be 6 figures.


- Peter


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


Here, read this.  it's old, but it's EFF's take on CALEA.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/

If you take the time and read this through (it's HOURS)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf

You'll notice that the FCC readily admits it cannot resolve the technical
conflicts between law written for POTS interception and digital packet
network monitoring.

It is expecting that precedent and our willingness to just throw up our
hands and let them have it will eventually settle those conflicts for it,
so it will not have to defend the almost incomprehensible dichotomy of POTS
telephone taps and internet data interception.




- Original Message - 
From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 


I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.

Mark McElvy
   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

Peering Point?
Bandwidth would decrease if a good percentage of the traffic was to each 
other.

Otherwise it is just a routing nightmare.

- Peter


Jory Privett wrote:

I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same 
area I know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was 
just wanting to establish a link to one or more of them and start 
routing (BGP most likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  
This would allow each to have more capacity and redundancy and not 
have to pay any large amount for it.  I know all of the big players do 
it and it is the basic fabric the internet is made of.  I was just 
wondering if any WISPs do it and how?


Jory Privett
WCCS


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Peter R. wrote:

Mr. Hush,

Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

SUGGESTIONS of what to do:

 we have decided to

stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.


I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off for his customers?

Is this supposed to have a positive impact?

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] 700 MHz -- FCC -- COMMENTS !

2007-04-26 Thread Smith, Rick
WE NEED TO GET TOGETHER COMMENTS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS AND POST THEM.

 

I WILL START  A PHONE CAMPAIGN TO DO THIS AS WELL AS GET MORE WISPA
MEMBERS IF SOMEONE GETS ME A LIST TO WORK FROM.

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISP] 700 MHz FCC Meeting?

 

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission decided on Wednesday to seek 
more public comment on how the sale of valuable wireless airwaves will 
work, a move that could delay the start of the auction.
Read the rest here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/wr_nm/fcc_auction_dc

Perhaps take the time to comment to the FCC on this docket

4/25/07
FCC Addresses Rules Governing Commercial Wireless and Public Safety 
Licenses in the 700 MHz Spectrum Band.
News Release: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.pdf 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.doc 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A1.pdf
Martin Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A2.pdf
Copps Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.dochttp
://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.doc%3Eht
tp:/hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A3.pdf 
Adelstein Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A4.pdf
McDowell Statement: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272629A5.pdf

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a
Report and Order (Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Further Notice) that
address rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz spectrum 
band, commonly
referred to as the 700 MHz Band. This spectrum is currently occupied 
by television
broadcasters during the digital television (DTV) transition and will be 
made fully available for
wireless services, including public safety and commercial services, when

the DTV transition is
completed on February 17, 2009.
The FCC has been considering rules related to the use of the 700 MHz 
Band spectrum in
three ongoing proceedings: (1) the 700 MHz Commercial Services 
proceeding, (2) the 700 MHz
Guard Bands proceeding, and (3) the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding. 
Today's Order and
Further Notice address issues in all three proceedings. These decisions 
and proposals will allow
the FCC to offer a variety of licenses in the 700 MHz auction and 
facilitate the provision of new
and innovative services to consumers across the country, as well as 
clearing the path for
nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband services for the public 
safety community.

Action by the Commission on April 25, 2007 by Report and Order and 
Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 07-72).
WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 01-309, 03-264, 06-169, and 96-86
CC Docket No. 94-102
PS Docket No. 06-229

 

(borrowed from Peter R.)

 

 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Mike Hammett mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:19 AM

Subject: [WISP] 700 MHz FCC Meeting?

 

I hear there's a meeting at the FCC on 700 MHz.  Do we have
anyone going?

 

 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

 

 

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Law Brief on CALEA

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

http://www.crblaw.com/news/201369_1kc-5-18-06.pdf
(forwarded from Bearhill)

--


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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato
Being from Massachusetts and studying the American Revolution through 
out my youth, which is one exciting piece of history, Patrick Henry and 
Give me Liberty or give me Death has to be one of the cornerstone of 
my beliefs.




Jeromie Reeves wrote:

On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 as Patrick Henry once said

 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


 Who is Patrick Henry??


Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?



Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TTP

2007-04-26 Thread Don Renner


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] TTP

Has anyone spoken with any TTP for CALEA mediation boxes?

After re-reading the Cisco CALEA compliance stuff today, 
(http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/04/calea-tpp.html) I'm beginning to 
think that you need a box that can massage the data dump and transport 
it to the LEA.

According to Bearhill's webinar today 
(http://www.bearhill.com/webinars.html), being able to make th etap with 
compliant equipment is one thing, being able to extract the data and 
send it real-time to the LEA is another thing.

I have a client who spoke with Apogee, who is basically re-using an SS8 
box. Cost is about $800 per month. They do all the heavy lifting.

I read a couple reviews of Solera. There box is about $7000.

I don't know what Bearhill's solution costs. It depends on how many 
POP's I guess.

So any input on TTP's ???

-- 


Regards,

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Matt Liotta

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required
compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA
nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf,
educate everyone, and try some give and take with the regulators.

  
I can't speak for the others that have been avoiding this thread. I've 
been avoiding it because there is no useful value in it. You refer to 
we like somehow both you and everyone else has been discussing this 
issue with no resolution. That is not the case. Some of us have already 
accepted the law and become compliant with it. In fact, the very people 
that are compliant with it are probably the same ones not discussing the 
issue.


CALEA is a requirement that we must all deal with. No sense discussing 
whether we should or not. Be compliant or don't be compliant, but stop 
arguing that any of us should do anything other then be compliant. If 
you or anyone else is choosing not to be compliant then that is your 
choice and I don't see why the rest of need to know or care why.


The thing I find interesting is what the practical impact of this is 
going to be on compliant organizations.


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

George Rogato wrote:


Peter R. wrote:


Mr. Hush,

Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

SUGGESTIONS of what to do:


 we have decided to


stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.



I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off for his customers?

Is this supposed to have a positive impact?

George


Why yes he did.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


No, it means I thumb my nose at them when they come along and tell me I have
do something for them...for free.



Well I for one don't want to have to pay higher taxes so that the 
government can pay industry to conform with their requirements.


I kinda like user fees myself. You are required to do something, you pay 
for it, not me and everyone else.


Asking the government to pay you for anything is obscene to me.
I hate people who live off the government just because they can  and I 
hate that I and my employees have to pay for someone else's free ride 
through higher payroll and income taxes..

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Peter R. wrote:

George Rogato wrote:


Peter R. wrote:


Mr. Hush,

Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

SUGGESTIONS of what to do:


 we have decided to


stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.



I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off for his customers?

Is this supposed to have a positive impact?

George


Why yes he did.



Sheesh


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Peter R.

Again I ask you, how do you do that?

How do you get hundreds to write in?

You wrote a note that could be massaged and sent to customers. (But then 
you would start losing customers almost immediately).  So people have a 
starting point.


The PR... you suggested that no one could write one... actually anyone 
can write one, you just couldn't send it without Board approval. Big 
diff.  The hard part is writing the letter. So any volunteers to write 
the letter to the News (AP and UPI)?


Any association including WISPA is made up of its members. So if enough 
of you feel that the action to take is to tell the FCC that we cannot 
comply, then please, now is the time to step up to the plate. Let your 
board know how you feel. Start drafting your PR message and your letter 
to the FCC. (WISPA works only because of Volunteers so step up and get 
drafting).


- Peter


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


now.  I'm suggesting that we recruit those hundreds...errr..thousands to
file and say that they cannot comply.   This is not civil disobedience, this
is changing the POV of people who made bad policy.

They can't possibly undertake the task of taking down thousands of tiny
networks, which is what would change policies and possibly get pretty much
all of us exempted or changed to some non-mandated 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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network 
sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of us, 
and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: [WISPA] WISP Peering


There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of them 
about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to do 
with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to 
make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What paperwork 
needs to be done to protect each company? How do you control throughput to 
and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her would be greatly 
appreciated.


Jory Privett
WCCS

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

I think there are between 3000 and 6000 wisps.

I do NOT think CALEA is a bad thing.  Pretty hard to abuse it and there's NO 
reason for the ability to spy on bad guys to not exist.


Lastly, I just can't take it anymore!  Some of you guys loose more sleep 
over the little stuff.  I'm FAR more worried about my TAX money being spent 
to support welfare baby factories and studies to determine that the fruit 
fly is far more endowed than the average human male than I am about CALEA or 
the 477.


Sheesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling

I'm out of this argument permantely.  It's too religious for my tastes. 
Find something we CAN change and I'll be the first one in line to help 
change it.  Shoot, that's why I helped start wispa and have been on the 
board since it was a self appointed one!


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?




Wow.  I guess the title really is right.

When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could 
join
WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks,  free 
networks,

big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community,
neighborhood, or even just block.

Now we've decided that the only people who count are the  big guys. 
The
professionals?  A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't 
file

477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was no
time at all.   What will happen when the next mandate comes?   Will you
start referencing the scores of WISP's?   After the next one will it be
the dozens?

Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us.

I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal, 
hobby,

free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP.   So, we just
toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us?  You
KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by
CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to 
assist

law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly
getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light.

So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via 
wireless
because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality?   I 
don't
advocate lying to anyone.  If you can, by george, file you can.  But for 
the
rest of us..  File you can't.   And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE 
15-20K

network operators to do the same.   Create the logjam that teaches
regulators when they've done wrong.   This is the most basic tenet of
democracy I can think of.   There is no holiness to the government or to
law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are 
subject

to negotiation and resistance by the governed.

I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network.   But,
I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we stick
together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back 
off

and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably comply.
As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we 
can!


And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be?   oh, he was a
renegade?   That looks like what you all want to do.  AT least the public
list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP industry
from exinction.Sheesh.   Who cares about that radical issue?

I have written over and over and over that this isn't about me, nor my 
views
on the right or wrong... but about our industry and DEFENDING IT.And 
it

appears the biggest fight WISPA wants to have is the one to shut up those
who want to save their own skin, plus that of their fellow intrepid
operators.

I would encourage you to sit down and read the last FCC published document
on the topic of CALEA.  You need to understand that what we are supposedly
working on as compliance is not fixed AT ALL.  Just becoming presently
compliant is not a gauranteed long term or future solution.   The FCC
reserves the right to mandate PRECISELY what we are doing, and even in the
future to demand certification of the equipment we use.  They are 
resisting
that now, but but as history shows and the fact that they're trying to 
force

CALEA compliance on us, that they're as bendable as a willow in the wind.
This is not, as some people are attempting to portray it a minor, one 
time
bump in the road.   It's going to get bigger and it's going to continue 
to

be a source of heartburn even for those who can 

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network 
sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of 
us, and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon


Hey I think thats a good thing you've done there Marlon, getting along 
and even doing business with your competitors.


But where do you think the line would be drawn in respect to anti 
competitive practices?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network 
sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of 
us, and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon


Hey I think thats a good thing you've done there Marlon, getting along and 
even doing business with your competitors.


Yeah.  It's something that the three of us have already been doing for a 
couple of years.  We sell on each other's ap's at the same price.  The only 
catch is that each of us has to live under the bw, and bit cap rules of the 
other guys network vs. our own.  But that seems perfectly fair to me.


We also handle all tech support for the cusotmer.  The customer should NEVER 
contact the other isp.  We have however, shown up together at problematic 
customers and worked jointly to fix any issues.




But where do you think the line would be drawn in respect to anti 
competitive practices?


I'm not sure.  We've not had that come up yet.

Did you have a specific situation in mind?



--
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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

I'm sure he was drunk when he said it!

I'm JUST KIDDING
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services

42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


Being from Massachusetts and studying the American Revolution through 
out my youth, which is one exciting piece of history, Patrick Henry and 
Give me Liberty or give me Death has to be one of the cornerstone of 
my beliefs.




Jeromie Reeves wrote:

On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 as Patrick Henry once said

 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


 Who is Patrick Henry??


Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?



Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).


--
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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread George Rogato

Just dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's.

If you guys all got together and set a price that you each would charge 
the consumer, then I believe you may have issues. Price fixing. As long 
as you guys really compete rather than slice up the pie, your probably 
clear.


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a 
network sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each 
of us, and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon


Hey I think thats a good thing you've done there Marlon, getting along 
and even doing business with your competitors.


Yeah.  It's something that the three of us have already been doing for a 
couple of years.  We sell on each other's ap's at the same price.  The 
only catch is that each of us has to live under the bw, and bit cap 
rules of the other guys network vs. our own.  But that seems perfectly 
fair to me.


We also handle all tech support for the cusotmer.  The customer should 
NEVER contact the other isp.  We have however, shown up together at 
problematic customers and worked jointly to fix any issues.




But where do you think the line would be drawn in respect to anti 
competitive practices?


I'm not sure.  We've not had that come up yet.

Did you have a specific situation in mind?



--
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] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non 
unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional 
installers.


The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 
professional installer is.


What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where 
it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use 
specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro 
installer.  Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without 
also including the cable and antenna for it.


To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a 
specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' 
wpcs days).  The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified 
combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. 
So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not 
accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit.


The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device 
designed for a professional installer.  If you're not sure that your device 
is for a pro installer, look in the manual.  If it's got an n connector on 
it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers.


That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone.  We are, as users of this 
gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't 
have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a 
Linksys dsl router etc.).


Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use 
anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna.  But they clearly aren't yet 
ready to go there.


Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with 
the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules).  I'll pass along 
what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it.


Hope that helps,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[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: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval




I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed.  It simply says
that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA.  Once something
becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.

Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes
that antenna must be removable.  Just try and unsolder an antenna lead
while hanging off a tower.  I doubt that is their intention and thus
they would certainly allow a removable antenna.

I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having
Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom
consumer router.

For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I
did see that in the document.  I felt it was a very positive step and
one that will help the Industry in general.



On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I certainly DO want to mix and match.  Hell, it's going on all over
anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway.  The 
mix

and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore.
However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.

This is the specific clause that applies to us:
 The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be
applied to modules.

If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for
professional installation only.

This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the
world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have
changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would
bring almost all of them back into compliance.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
No.  I didn't say that.  What I said is that we all charge each other 
the same price for the whole sale access to the network.


What each guy charges his customers I have no idea.  Don't really care.

I'd rather make a couple of bucks on a connection per month and have no 
support duties than make $10 or $15 and have more ap's on the air.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Just dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's.

If you guys all got together and set a price that you each would charge 
the consumer, then I believe you may have issues. Price fixing. As long as 
you guys really compete rather than slice up the pie, your probably clear.


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network 
sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of 
us, and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon


Hey I think thats a good thing you've done there Marlon, getting along 
and even doing business with your competitors.


Yeah.  It's something that the three of us have already been doing for a 
couple of years.  We sell on each other's ap's at the same price.  The 
only catch is that each of us has to live under the bw, and bit cap rules 
of the other guys network vs. our own.  But that seems perfectly fair to 
me.


We also handle all tech support for the cusotmer.  The customer should 
NEVER contact the other isp.  We have however, shown up together at 
problematic customers and worked jointly to fix any issues.




But where do you think the line would be drawn in respect to anti 
competitive practices?


I'm not sure.  We've not had that come up yet.

Did you have a specific situation in mind?



--
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] TTP

2007-04-26 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
We are using VantagePoint.


Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] TTP

Has anyone spoken with any TTP for CALEA mediation boxes?

After re-reading the Cisco CALEA compliance stuff today, 
(http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/04/calea-tpp.html) I'm beginning to 
think that you need a box that can massage the data dump and transport 
it to the LEA.

According to Bearhill's webinar today 
(http://www.bearhill.com/webinars.html), being able to make th etap with 
compliant equipment is one thing, being able to extract the data and 
send it real-time to the LEA is another thing.

I have a client who spoke with Apogee, who is basically re-using an SS8 
box. Cost is about $800 per month. They do all the heavy lifting.

I read a couple reviews of Solera. There box is about $7000.

I don't know what Bearhill's solution costs. It depends on how many 
POP's I guess.

So any input on TTP's ???

-- 


Regards,

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Tim Kerns

Please see inline...


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval



Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non 
unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional 
installers.


The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 
professional installer is.


What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where 
it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use 
specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro 
installer.  Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap 
without also including the cable and antenna for it.


To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on 
a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad 
ol' wpcs days).  The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified 
combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP 
limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not 
accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit.


up to here I agreewith you.



The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device 
designed for a professional installer.  If you're not sure that your 
device is for a pro installer, look in the manual.  If it's got an n 
connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to 
professional installers.

***

From the new rule:
4. The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently 
attached or employ a unique antenna coupler (at all connections between 
the module and the antenna, including the cable). Any antenna used with the 
module must be approved with the module, either at the time of initial 
authorization or through a Class II permissive change. The professional 
installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules.


In other words it MUST ALWAYS have a unique connector

***
This from part 15 says that the unique conector is NOT required if 
intended for a professional installer The N connector is considered a 
unique connector
Section 15.203 Antenna requirement.An intentional radiator shall be designed 
to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party 
shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or 
of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall 
be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this Section. The 
manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be replaced by 
the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is 
prohibited. This requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to 
devices operated under the provisions of Sections 15.211, 15.213, 15.217, 
15.219, or 15.221. Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional 
radiators that must be professionally installed, such as perimeter 
protection systems and some field disturbance sensors, or to other 
intentional radiators which, in accordance with Section 15.31(d), must be 
measured at the installation site. However, the installer shall be 
responsible for ensuring that theproper antenna is employed so that the 
limits in this Part are not exceeded.


**


That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone.  We are, as users of this 
gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't 
have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like 
a Linksys dsl router etc.).


TRUE. all radios are to be sold with cable and antennas



Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use 
anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna.  But they clearly aren't yet 
ready to go there.


The mix/match can still ONLY be with antennas that were certified with the 
radio module / firmware.




Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time 
with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules).  I'll pass 
along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it.


Thanks, looking forward to response.



Hope that helps,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- 

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Travis Johnson
Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area 
rather than give that customer away to the competition?


I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a potential 
customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the years 
and it has always paid off. Once one person is connected, they tell 
their neighbors about it. Pretty soon an AP that was put up for a single 
customer has 10 or 20 customers on it.


Doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Plus when they need tech 
support, how do you troubleshoot the competitors AP's? How do you do RF 
link tests and packet loss tests at 10:00PM when the customer is on the 
phone?


Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a 
network sharing agreement.  It's a handshake deal at this point though.


Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each 
of us, and we set a price for using each other's ap's.


Marlon


Hey I think thats a good thing you've done there Marlon, getting 
along and even doing business with your competitors.


Yeah.  It's something that the three of us have already been doing for 
a couple of years.  We sell on each other's ap's at the same price.  
The only catch is that each of us has to live under the bw, and bit 
cap rules of the other guys network vs. our own.  But that seems 
perfectly fair to me.


We also handle all tech support for the cusotmer.  The customer should 
NEVER contact the other isp.  We have however, shown up together at 
problematic customers and worked jointly to fix any issues.




But where do you think the line would be drawn in respect to anti 
competitive practices?


I'm not sure.  We've not had that come up yet.

Did you have a specific situation in mind?



--
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] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

I am still wondering what is meant by unique for the connector.
I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed.  Why is that?

Lonnie

On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non
unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional
installers.

The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15
professional installer is.

What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where
it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use
specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro
installer.  Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without
also including the cable and antenna for it.

To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a
specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol'
wpcs days).  The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified
combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits.
So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not
accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit.

The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device
designed for a professional installer.  If you're not sure that your device
is for a pro installer, look in the manual.  If it's got an n connector on
it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers.

That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone.  We are, as users of this
gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't
have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a
Linksys dsl router etc.).

Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use
anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna.  But they clearly aren't yet
ready to go there.

Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with
the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules).  I'll pass along
what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it.

Hope that helps,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[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: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval


I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed.  It simply says
 that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
 connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA.  Once something
 becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.

 Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes
 that antenna must be removable.  Just try and unsolder an antenna lead
 while hanging off a tower.  I doubt that is their intention and thus
 they would certainly allow a removable antenna.

 I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having
 Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom
 consumer router.

 For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I
 did see that in the document.  I felt it was a very positive step and
 one that will help the Industry in general.



 On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I certainly DO want to mix and match.  Hell, it's going on all over
 anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway.  The
 mix
 and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore.
 However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.

 This is the specific clause that applies to us:
  The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 may not be
 applied to modules.

 If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for
 professional installation only.

 This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the
 world.  Not at us.  If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say
 otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them.  90% of the networks out there have
 changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would
 bring almost all of them back into compliance.

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam


 --
 Lonnie Nunweiler
 Valemount Networks Corporation
 http://www.star-os.com/
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 Archives: 

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...

2007-04-26 Thread Jack Unger

Here's one definition that the FCC has used for unique connector.

  Begin Quote ___

A unique connector is one that is not of a standard type found in
electronic supply stores.

_ End Quote __

jack


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

I am still wondering what is meant by unique for the connector.
I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed.  Why is that?

Lonnie

On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non
unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional
installers.

The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15
professional installer is.

What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device 
where

it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use
specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro
installer.  Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap 
without

also including the cable and antenna for it.

To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained 
on a
specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the 
bad ol'

wpcs days).  The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified
combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP 
limits.

So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not
accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit.

The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device
designed for a professional installer.  If you're not sure that your 
device
is for a pro installer, look in the manual.  If it's got an n 
connector on
it, it should also say that it's only available to professional 
installers.


That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone.  We are, as users of this
gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we 
don't
have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits 
(like a

Linksys dsl router etc.).

Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use
anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna.  But they clearly aren't 
yet

ready to go there.

Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time 
with

the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules).  I'll pass along
what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it.

Hope that helps,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[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: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval


I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed.  It simply says
 that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
 connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA.  Once something
 becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.

 Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes
 that antenna must be removable.  Just try and unsolder an antenna lead
 while hanging off a tower.  I doubt that is their intention and thus
 they would certainly allow a removable antenna.

 I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having
 Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom
 consumer router.

 For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I
 did see that in the document.  I felt it was a very positive step and
 one that will help the Industry in general.



(earlier discussion pruned)

--
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
FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers
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] tower

2007-04-26 Thread RickG

I've got six 20' tower sections. Made of solid core round stock. Very
heavy. Anyone interested, hit me offlist. -RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] need service in Bradenton, Fl

2007-04-26 Thread RickG

Contact me offlist. -RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...

2007-04-26 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

So once a non standard connector becomes an Industry Standard then you
will find it in most supply stores.  Also, what sort of supply store?
Radio Shack or Electrocomm?  Radio Shack might have the N connector,
but it is likely suitable for VHF use only.  Microwave quality is not
mainstream, so does that mean an AP can use a Microwave rated N
connector?  I would think so.

Lonnie

On 4/26/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Here's one definition that the FCC has used for unique connector.

  Begin Quote ___

A unique connector is one that is not of a standard type found in
electronic supply stores.

_ End Quote __

jack


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 I am still wondering what is meant by unique for the connector.
 I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed.  Why is that?

 Lonnie

 On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non
 unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional
 installers.

 The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15
 professional installer is.

 What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device
 where
 it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use
 specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro
 installer.  Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap
 without
 also including the cable and antenna for it.

 To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained
 on a
 specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the
 bad ol'
 wpcs days).  The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified
 combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP
 limits.
 So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not
 accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit.

 The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device
 designed for a professional installer.  If you're not sure that your
 device
 is for a pro installer, look in the manual.  If it's got an n
 connector on
 it, it should also say that it's only available to professional
 installers.

 That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone.  We are, as users of this
 gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we
 don't
 have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits
 (like a
 Linksys dsl router etc.).

 Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use
 anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna.  But they clearly aren't
 yet
 ready to go there.

 Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time
 with
 the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules).  I'll pass along
 what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it.

 Hope that helps,
 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [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: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
 Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval


 I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed.  It simply says
  that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
  connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA.  Once something
  becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.
 
  Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes
  that antenna must be removable.  Just try and unsolder an antenna lead
  while hanging off a tower.  I doubt that is their intention and thus
  they would certainly allow a removable antenna.
 
  I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having
  Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom
  consumer router.
 
  For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I
  did see that in the document.  I felt it was a very positive step and
  one that will help the Industry in general.
 

(earlier discussion pruned)

--
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
FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers
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/