[WISPA] Patrick Henry

2007-04-27 Thread Edward J. Hatfield III
If memory serves, the Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated threat
was first uttered by one of the Borg, those galaxy hopping cyber-locusts
introduced in one of the Star Trek TV series. It became poignant and
memorable when Captain Picard (I can't remember the actor's name but I think
it might have been Patrick something) himself was assimilated into the
collective.

 

George Rogato is, of course, correct concerning Patrick Henry's famous
challenge.

 

Ted

 

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
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]:

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

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

 

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] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...

2007-04-27 Thread John Scrivner
So I guess once a unique connector gets a shelf spot in the local radio 
shack your radio certification is void and requires a new unique 
connector to be developed  followed by a trip back to the certification 
lab. I just love the FCC sometimes. I guess the FCC could outlaw the 
sale of certain connectors to the general public. That would be a good 
approach...NOT!

(see the film Borat for proper use of the pause-NOT punchline)
Scriv


Jack Unger 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)


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] ISPCON WISPA Reception

2007-04-27 Thread John Scrivner
There will be a WISPA reception at ISPCON on Wednesday May 23rd at 6:30 
to 8:30 pm. I hope to see many of you there. We will have free drinks 
and appetizers thanks to Secure Email Plus (Frank Muto) and BearHill 
Security (Tim Kery).  These Vendor Members put up  the money for the 
reception. Please remember these guys when making buying decisions and 
give them your thanks for supporting our efforts. Thank you Frank and Tim!

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

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

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


[WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Smith, Rick
We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?
 
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread ralph
The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved system to
start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for controversy
from the beginning.  

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a 
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems out 
there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a system.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved system to
start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for controversy
from the beginning.  


Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue

of will you fry our children ?

  


--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Peter R.

Who makes that?
How does it work?
Is it expensive?


Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:


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 ???

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Smith, Rick

I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
?

isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:59 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
system to start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open
for controversy from the beginning.  

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Smith, Rick

...yet. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems out
there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a
system.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:
 The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved 
 system to start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open

 for controversy from the beginning.

 Why would you do anything else?

 Ralph

  -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf Of Smith, Rick
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

 We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik 
 and
 SR5 / SR9 cards.
  
 Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue

 of will you fry our children ?

   

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson
How about the fact that 1000 other schools around the country are using 
it? :)


Travis
Microserv

Smith, Rick wrote:

I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
?

isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:59 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
system to start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open
for controversy from the beginning.  


Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue

of will you fry our children ?

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread John Scrivner
If you cannot Google it out of the FCC website then I would make a call 
to a telecom attorney and ask for the legal docs from the FCC that state 
what emissions are considered to be legal for good health. There should 
be docs on this some place on the FCC website. You could show the docs 
along with the FCC stamp of approval on the device and this should cover 
you.

Scriv


Smith, Rick wrote:


I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
?

isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:59 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
system to start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open
for controversy from the beginning.  


Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.

Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Peter R.

Smith, Rick wrote:


I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
?

isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?
 


No standard FCC doc on this.

There was a alarge study done in the UK recently.
(Google would be your friend)
http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml
http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pdf 
www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf -


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Frank Crawford
Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's in thier
manual.
Frank

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 Rick,

 I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
 public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems out
 there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a
system.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 ralph wrote:
  The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
system to
  start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
controversy
  from the beginning.
 
  Why would you do anything else?
 
  Ralph
 
   -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Smith, Rick
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
  We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
  SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
  Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
  of will you fry our children ?
 
 

 -- 
 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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
It is clearly a logical quandary to prove a negative and it is known by
those who have other agendas as a technique to inject fear, uncertainty, and
doubt.

Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has the death word, radiation,
and easily causes fear due to the lack of response to the request to prove
that it isn't harmful.

However, so is a lit match, and with a lot more electromagnetic radiation
power than an access point...and, in fact, a flashlight, too.

The exercise that some, as in the case study, go through to prove that
the levels are safe just feed the FUD since no level is unsafe up closer to
the levels found inside a kilowatt microwave oven, most of which leak more
into a kitchen than an AP does at 1 foot and at the same frequency.

It apparently cost Motorola millions to counter the mischief makers over
cell phones who tried to bring it to its knees with pseudo-scientific mumbo
jumbo that got lots of press.

It doesn't appear that any satisfactory response can be mounted to those who
use these techniques...except time...time as taken by the coffee industry
when the nut cases finally gave up and the power industry who are on the
back side, now, of the power-line problem.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:36 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

Smith, Rick wrote:

I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
?

isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?
  

No standard FCC doc on this.

There was a alarge study done in the UK recently.
(Google would be your friend)
http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml
http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pd
f 
www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf -

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] EarthLink studying muni Wi-Fi business

2007-04-27 Thread Matt Liotta
ATLANTA - EarthLink Inc. said Thursday it will study the performance of 
its municipal wireless Internet networks in four cities — Philadelphia, 
New Orleans and California's Anaheim and Milpitas — before deciding how 
to move forward with similar Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_hi_te/earthlink_wi_fi
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Ryan Langseth
I would suggest going there with some pretty pictures. You can tell
anyone anything, and they may say they understand, But as House says
people lie.  Go there with some graphs of Spectrum Analysis of things
like a AP at 25' versus a Microwave at 25'.  Ask the parents how many of
their kids care cell phones. Even go there with a sweep of the a large
spectrum of some area.  People that are worried about wifi poisoning
probably got the concern citizen look from some other source, (News
Media/tabloids, etc) and are oblivious how what else puts out
Radiation.

Ryan

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:31 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
 It is clearly a logical quandary to prove a negative and it is known by
 those who have other agendas as a technique to inject fear, uncertainty, and
 doubt.
 
 Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has the death word, radiation,
 and easily causes fear due to the lack of response to the request to prove
 that it isn't harmful.
 
 However, so is a lit match, and with a lot more electromagnetic radiation
 power than an access point...and, in fact, a flashlight, too.
 
 The exercise that some, as in the case study, go through to prove that
 the levels are safe just feed the FUD since no level is unsafe up closer to
 the levels found inside a kilowatt microwave oven, most of which leak more
 into a kitchen than an AP does at 1 foot and at the same frequency.
 
 It apparently cost Motorola millions to counter the mischief makers over
 cell phones who tried to bring it to its knees with pseudo-scientific mumbo
 jumbo that got lots of press.
 
 It doesn't appear that any satisfactory response can be mounted to those who
 use these techniques...except time...time as taken by the coffee industry
 when the nut cases finally gave up and the power industry who are on the
 back side, now, of the power-line problem.
 
 . . . j o n a t h a n
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Peter R.
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:36 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
 Smith, Rick wrote:
 
 I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
 issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
 radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
 ?
 
 isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?
   
 
 No standard FCC doc on this.
 
 There was a alarge study done in the UK recently.
 (Google would be your friend)
 http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml
 http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
 www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pd
 f 
 www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf -
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
Probably gets anonymously injected into the media by the cell companies
trying to make muni-Wifi a worse alternative to paying $59 a month for
mobile data service...

- Original Message - 
From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 I would suggest going there with some pretty pictures. You can tell
 anyone anything, and they may say they understand, But as House says
 people lie.  Go there with some graphs of Spectrum Analysis of things
 like a AP at 25' versus a Microwave at 25'.  Ask the parents how many of
 their kids care cell phones. Even go there with a sweep of the a large
 spectrum of some area.  People that are worried about wifi poisoning
 probably got the concern citizen look from some other source, (News
 Media/tabloids, etc) and are oblivious how what else puts out
 Radiation.

 Ryan

 On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:31 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
  It is clearly a logical quandary to prove a negative and it is known by
  those who have other agendas as a technique to inject fear, uncertainty,
and
  doubt.
 
  Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has the death word,
radiation,
  and easily causes fear due to the lack of response to the request to
prove
  that it isn't harmful.
 
  However, so is a lit match, and with a lot more electromagnetic
radiation
  power than an access point...and, in fact, a flashlight, too.
 
  The exercise that some, as in the case study, go through to prove
that
  the levels are safe just feed the FUD since no level is unsafe up closer
to
  the levels found inside a kilowatt microwave oven, most of which leak
more
  into a kitchen than an AP does at 1 foot and at the same frequency.
 
  It apparently cost Motorola millions to counter the mischief makers over
  cell phones who tried to bring it to its knees with pseudo-scientific
mumbo
  jumbo that got lots of press.
 
  It doesn't appear that any satisfactory response can be mounted to those
who
  use these techniques...except time...time as taken by the coffee
industry
  when the nut cases finally gave up and the power industry who are on the
  back side, now, of the power-line problem.
 
  . . . j o n a t h a n
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Peter R.
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:36 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
  Smith, Rick wrote:
 
  I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
  issue is, is standard documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
  radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove it's not harmful
  ?
  
  isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?
  
  
  No standard FCC doc on this.
 
  There was a alarge study done in the UK recently.
  (Google would be your friend)
  http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml
  http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
 
www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pd
  f
  www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf -
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007
3:23 PM



-- 
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

2007-04-27 Thread Zack Kneisley

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.
--
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...

2007-04-27 Thread Jack Unger

John,

You're being sarcastic here, right?

I'd be really surprised to hear that any certification ever was voided 
because a connector became more available.


I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor, old FCC. First off, certain 
business elements want to eliminate them. Second, certain political 
interests (controlled by certain business interests) want to control 
them and determine what rules they make. Third, they regularly get 
threatened by Congress with reduced budgets. Fourth, their job is to 
implement the (often vague) laws made by Congress. Fifth, they have to 
be somewhat vague to try to apply the laws to everyone without pissing 
off anyone. Sixth, they have to be somewhat specific so their rules 
don't get challenged in court by the previously mentioned business 
interests. Seven, their engineers have to be pretty smart to know how 
wireless really works and what engineering principles to write into 
regulations. Eight, their lawyers have to be pretty good writers to 
translate the engineering principles into clearly-written rules and 
regulations. Nine, they have to craft a website that makes it fairly 
easy for the public to do business with them. Ten, they have to have 
pretty thick skin to not get distracted and become vindictive when 
everyone attacks them.


Sheeesh, I never found myself defending the FCC before. Unfortunately, 
unlicensed does not mean unregulated. Responsible business people (which 
is what we are) strive to understand the conditions under which the 
regulatory agency works and strive to interact constructively with the 
people who work for that agency. I think we've found (and will continue 
to find) that most of the FCC employees will do what they can to be 
responsive to our needs if only we will communicate those needs in a 
clear, responsible, and timely fashion.


But I'm probably preaching to the choir here because most WISP-folk 
already know this stuff and are already playing a constructive role, right?

jack



John Scrivner wrote:
So I guess once a unique connector gets a shelf spot in the local radio 
shack your radio certification is void and requires a new unique 
connector to be developed  followed by a trip back to the certification 
lab. I just love the FCC sometimes. I guess the FCC could outlaw the 
sale of certain connectors to the general public. That would be a good 
approach...NOT!

(see the film Borat for proper use of the pause-NOT punchline)
Scriv


Jack Unger 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 

Re: [WISPA] Law Brief on CALEA

2007-04-27 Thread Zack Kneisley

This report is almost a year old.. anything more recent?

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

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/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] EarthLink studying muni Wi-Fi business

2007-04-27 Thread Felix A. Lopez
Mark/WISPA- Thank you for the link. My team recently
deployed a MuniWIFi network but also installed a mesh
system that enabled utility and muni services in
addition to normal WiFi.   The utility/muni services
are offered via the mesh box that has 4 radios. We
offered the normal WiFi on the 2.4Ghz and the
utlity/muni services on the licensed 4.9 GHz.   The
utility/muni services help build the business case and
provide support for the traditional public WiFi
access.

F.
--- Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ATLANTA - EarthLink Inc. said Thursday it will study
 the performance of 
 its municipal wireless Internet networks in four
 cities — Philadelphia, 
 New Orleans and California's Anaheim and Milpitas —
 before deciding how 
 to move forward with similar Wi-Fi networks
 elsewhere.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_hi_te/earthlink_wi_fi
 -- 
 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

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson

This is not correct. Let's do an example:

WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.


WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if either 
Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have to allow 
BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.


Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing 
WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very 
confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with a 
single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.


Travis
Microserv

Zack Kneisley wrote:

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.

--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Adam Kennedy

That's where peering agreements come into play.

Last case scenario you (WISP-A) just want to drop peering entirely but 
WISP-B doesn't stop advertising your route, then call up whoever their 
upstream is and talk to their NOC. If the /20 is your allocation from 
ARIN, and you aren't peering anymore, explain the situation to the NOC 
and they can stop accepting your /20 from WISP-B's advertisement.


Easy as that.

Travis Johnson wrote:

This is not correct. Let's do an example:

WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.


WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if either 
Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have to allow 
BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.


Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing 
WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very 
confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with a 
single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.


Travis
Microserv

Zack Kneisley wrote:

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.


--

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693
Fax: 888-293-3995
--
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...

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...


 John,

 You're being sarcastic here, right?

 I'd be really surprised to hear that any certification ever was voided
 because a connector became more available.

 I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor, old FCC. First off, certain
 business elements want to eliminate them. Second, certain political
 interests (controlled by certain business interests) want to control
 them and determine what rules they make. Third, they regularly get
 threatened by Congress with reduced budgets. Fourth, their job is to
 implement the (often vague) laws made by Congress. Fifth, they have to
 be somewhat vague to try to apply the laws to everyone without pissing
 off anyone. Sixth, they have to be somewhat specific so their rules
 don't get challenged in court by the previously mentioned business
 interests. Seven, their engineers have to be pretty smart to know how
 wireless really works and what engineering principles to write into
 regulations. Eight, their lawyers have to be pretty good writers to
 translate the engineering principles into clearly-written rules and
 regulations. Nine, they have to craft a website that makes it fairly
 easy for the public to do business with them. Ten, they have to have
 pretty thick skin to not get distracted and become vindictive when
 everyone attacks them.

 Sheeesh, I never found myself defending the FCC before. Unfortunately,
 unlicensed does not mean unregulated. Responsible business people (which
 is what we are) strive to understand the conditions under which the
 regulatory agency works and strive to interact constructively with the
 people who work for that agency. I think we've found (and will continue
 to find) that most of the FCC employees will do what they can to be
 responsive to our needs if only we will communicate those needs in a
 clear, responsible, and timely fashion.

 But I'm probably preaching to the choir here because most WISP-folk
 already know this stuff and are already playing a constructive role,
right?
  jack


There's a reason we call them servants.   If they don't like the heat,
better find a nice cushy job as a small business startup while trying to
defend yourself against a bunch of over-eager regulators.


-- 
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

2007-04-27 Thread Brad Belton
You make it sound like that can happen in a matter of minutes or even
seconds.  Not likely the case.  All the while your clients are getting hosed
due to the negligence of another.

Best,

Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

That's where peering agreements come into play.

Last case scenario you (WISP-A) just want to drop peering entirely but 
WISP-B doesn't stop advertising your route, then call up whoever their 
upstream is and talk to their NOC. If the /20 is your allocation from 
ARIN, and you aren't peering anymore, explain the situation to the NOC 
and they can stop accepting your /20 from WISP-B's advertisement.

Easy as that.

Travis Johnson wrote:
 This is not correct. Let's do an example:
 
 WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
 Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
 WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
 Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.
 
 WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if either 
 Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have to allow 
 BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.
 
 Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing 
 WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very 
 confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with a 
 single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.
 
 Travis
 Microserv
 
 Zack Kneisley wrote:
 On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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. :(

 That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
 correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
 happen.


 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.
 

 This is great and what a reliable network is made of.

-- 

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693
Fax: 888-293-3995
-- 
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

2007-04-27 Thread Brad Belton
Sometimes putting up your own tower isn't an option for a variety of
reasons.  However, I agree the idea of hanging a client of ours off of
somebody else's system doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies either for
obvious reasons.  

Sometimes it's best to just refer the potential client to the ISP that can
best service them.  We have done this countless times both directions and
often there is a referral fee paid if the lead pans out.  

Best,


Brad





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

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/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Frank,

Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Frank Crawford wrote:

Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's in thier
manual.
Frank

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


  

Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems out
there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a


system.
  

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:


The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
  

system to
  

start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
  

controversy
  

from the beginning.

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.

Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?


  

--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson
Yes... but this process takes 10-20 minutes or more. Our backbone (which 
also serves customers via redundant fiber lines) can't be down for that 
long or we have VERY upset customers requesting credits, refunds, etc.


Travis
Microserv

Adam Kennedy wrote:

That's where peering agreements come into play.

Last case scenario you (WISP-A) just want to drop peering entirely but 
WISP-B doesn't stop advertising your route, then call up whoever their 
upstream is and talk to their NOC. If the /20 is your allocation from 
ARIN, and you aren't peering anymore, explain the situation to the NOC 
and they can stop accepting your /20 from WISP-B's advertisement.


Easy as that.

Travis Johnson wrote:

This is not correct. Let's do an example:

WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.


WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if 
either Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have 
to allow BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.


Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing 
WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very 
confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with 
a single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.


Travis
Microserv

Zack Kneisley wrote:

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Smith, Rick
anyone have the FCC Cert# for the Trango Mesh ?  I might just do that. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

Frank,

Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Frank Crawford wrote:
 Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's in

 thier manual.
 Frank

 - Original Message -
 From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


   
 Rick,

 I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a 
 public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems 
 out there it would not be in your best interest to start off with 
 such a
 
 system.
   
 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 ralph wrote:
 
 The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
   
 system to
   
 start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
   
 controversy
   
 from the beginning.

 Why would you do anything else?

 Ralph

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

 On Behalf Of Smith, Rick
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

 We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik 
 and
 SR5 / SR9 cards.

 Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the 
 issue of will you fry our children ?


   
 --
 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

2007-04-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

Jory,

One thing you'll learn if you haven't allready is that although this is a 
world of fiece competitors, but even the fireces of competitors will partner 
with their other competitors, if there is a mutual benefit and no risk. The 
problem when most ISPs attempt to work togeather is that one party will 
rarely be willing to give up their dominent upper hand in the deal. In other 
words, one party wants to be a vendor to the other, instead of it being a 
true partnership on level ground.  Peering also has many technical 
considerations, and the best and cheapest path between WISPs is not always 
across their own network.  Often the required micro management of the 
peering relationship does not make it cost justified for the limited 
benefit. For example, will the peer happen from the same place your transit 
is? The same place where you have QOS and Intrusion detections systems? Or 
do they need to be replicated for the peering relationship?  Is it a Cross 
connect, or a sizable investment in infrastructure?
Do both parties run a routed network to make sure your network is not doubly 
used bouncing ro reach your peer location?


The first step is to identify a benefit for the peering, which is mutually 
and truely beneficial.  Second identify wether it technically makes since, 
based on the anticipated traffic that would be transfered between you, and 
potential bottlenecks on your backbone.


If so, its worth pursuing. Why would someone turn it down if the numbers 
work after being crunched? Peering is a great way to start to establish a 
better working relationship with your neighboring WISP.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM
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] WISP Peering

2007-04-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

Take note that there is no need to use BGP to do peering.
If the goal is to just peer to have an optimal single path to the other's 
network.
It can be done with a Static Route on each side. (of course would use 
something liek OSPF to re-route it through your network, depending where the 
peer point is)

I recommend seperating Peer traffic from shared transit traffic.
Each having their own VLAN through your bandwidth tracking software.
You then need routers or switches that can pass larger than 1500 packets to 
facilitate the transfer between you.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:22 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

2007-04-27 Thread Tom DeReggi
It could also be argued that the direction of the traffic may not matter 
relating to fees, when it is all primarilly local traffic.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread George Rogato
If the mesh box that is a MT box is legit and certified, why not just 
drop trango from the picture?

What is the purpose of trango ?


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Frank,

Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Frank Crawford wrote:
Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's in 
thier

manual.
Frank

- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 

Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik systems out
there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a


system.
 

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:
   

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
  

system to
 

start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
  

controversy
 

from the beginning.

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.

Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the issue
of will you fry our children ?


  

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson
The Trango MESH box uses Trango radios (thus FCC certified) and an RB532 
for doing the routing. The RB is NOT providing any wireless service.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
If the mesh box that is a MT box is legit and certified, why not just 
drop trango from the picture?

What is the purpose of trango ?


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Frank,

Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Frank Crawford wrote:
Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's 
in thier

manual.
Frank

- Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 

Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik 
systems out

there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a


system.
 

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:
  

The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
  

system to
 

start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
  

controversy
 

from the beginning.

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

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

Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using 
Mikrotik and

SR5 / SR9 cards.

Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the 
issue

of will you fry our children ?


  

--
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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread George Rogato

Travis Johnson wrote:
The Trango MESH box uses Trango radios (thus FCC certified) and an RB532 
for doing the routing. The RB is NOT providing any wireless service.


Travis
Microserv


ah
--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Mike Hammett

That could also happen anywhere on the net, though.


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


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



This is not correct. Let's do an example:

WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.


WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if either 
Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have to allow BOTH 
/20 networks in their BGP filters.


Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing WISP-A's 
/20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very confused, and 
thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with a single network 
entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.


Travis
Microserv

Zack Kneisley wrote:

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.

--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson
Yes, but my upstreams are people like ATT, Qwest, Level3, etc. and I am 
dealing with trained and experienced engineers (especially once you 
mention BGP). Yes, mistakes happen all the time... but _intentional_ 
errors to cause outages could be a different thing.


Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:

That could also happen anywhere on the net, though.


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


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering



This is not correct. Let's do an example:

WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network. 
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network. 
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.


WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if 
either Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have 
to allow BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.


Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing 
WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very 
confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with 
a single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.


Travis
Microserv

Zack Kneisley wrote:

On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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. :(


That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.



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.



This is great and what a reliable network is made of.

--
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] Patrick Henry

2007-04-27 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Edward I think you got lost, or I was clear as mud, par normal.

That would be Patrick Stewart as Locutus, in the two part ep named Wolf 359

I meant I had no memory of Mr Henry saying the words that started the
thread. As in my
first reply to George, I had a end sarcasm, indicating I knew well
who is was. I also quoted my favorite from him. Yes he is very much
right about the quote, I did not call that into question.

On 4/27/07, Edward J. Hatfield III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If memory serves, the Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated threat
was first uttered by one of the Borg, those galaxy hopping cyber-locusts
introduced in one of the Star Trek TV series. It became poignant and
memorable when Captain Picard (I can't remember the actor's name but I think
it might have been Patrick something) himself was assimilated into the
collective.



George Rogato is, of course, correct concerning Patrick Henry's famous
challenge.



Ted



-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
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]:

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

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



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/


[WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Peter R.

196 page decision

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf

SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...

(sigh).

This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.

Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed,
because it'll be down or something.




- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 196 page decision

 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf

  SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
 The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
 MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
 94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
 04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt


 -- 
 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] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Justin Comroe


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...

(sigh).

This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.

Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that drafted 
the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the 
FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center 
bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities 
converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could 
more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their 
radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an 
evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency 
assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A 
nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical as 
the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved following 
the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for 
replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic 
congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the 
connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering 
unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be 
funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation --  
and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.



Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed,
because it'll be down or something.

Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment 
as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've 
heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than 
for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio 
network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.


Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with 
no explaination.  Do you have any background or experience with public 
safety communications to help understand what you object to?  I don't 
understand either comment.  What's your beef?


Rich





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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



196 page decision

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf

 SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt


--
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] Re: CALEA

2007-04-27 Thread Matt Liotta
Getting the data for the LEA is just one part of compliance. What about 
the more practical issues?


CALEA requires:
Establishment of policies and procedures for supervision and control of 
officers and employees

Designating a 24/7/265 POC for the LEA
Validating legal authorization for the ELSUR
Maintaining secure and accurate records
Reporting any CALEA security breaches

AND... filling with the FCC how you are going to do the above.

Not implementing the policies and procedures may result in legal liability.

Assuming you have all that is needed to be compliant how do you actually 
comply with an order? You are going to at least need to collect the 
following information:

Telephone number/circuit ID
Start date/time
Officer presenting order
Judge issuing order
Type of ELSUR
Supervising carrier personnel
Certification of “senior official...”
Subscriber name
Date/time order served
Court issuing order
Court docket/file number
Law enforcement officers authorized to receive info
LEA contact numbers
Carrier employees involved

And what about the warrant's validity? CALEA requires the carrier to 
determine the following:

Does the Court have jurisdiction over Carrier?
Does the Court Order provide for Technical Assistance?
Has the Court provided for compensation?
If problems arise, how does the carrier address the issues – 
inside/outside counsel, Service Bureau, etc


Just in case you are wondering, acting on an invalid subpoena is $1,000 
min fine. Further, if you are acting in bad faith, the court can create, 
at carrier expense, a court-supervised monitor of your compliance to 
ensure due diligence. Any violations detected by the monitor can result 
in additional fines.


-Matt

Peter R. wrote:

Well, just over 2 weeks away from the deadline.

We have a webinar with Solera Networks on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:00 AM.
RSVP for info.

After many webinars, white papers, legal briefs, it seems that although your
edge router may be CALEA compliant, that might not be enough. You might need
a mediation box to take the data into an acceptable format for the DOJ. (In
most cases, you will need to transmit in real-time without adding noticeable
latency or lag).

Lots of my notes and thoughts are here:
http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/04/calea-tpp.html

More info here: www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm 
www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea3.htm

Comment away - all serious input is welcome.

If you have questions, contact us for answers or ideas. Thank you.

Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.
813.963.5884
www.rad-info.net
www.marketingideaguy.com



RAD-INFO, Inc.
813.963.5884


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk
to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities.
They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power
went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and
didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
perception, at least.

But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum doesn't
seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each
department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
problems.

Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a
rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


- Original Message - 
From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
  opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
 
  (sigh).
 
  This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
 
 Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that drafted
 the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
 FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
 bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities
 converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could
 more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
 radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an
 evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency
 assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
 nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical
as
 the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved following
 the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
 replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
 congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
 connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
 unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
 funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
allocation -- 
 and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.

  Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's
needed,
  because it'll be down or something.
 
 Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment
 as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
 heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than
 for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
 network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.

 Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with
 no explaination.  Do you have any background or experience with public
 safety communications to help understand what you object to?  I don't
 understand either comment.  What's your beef?

 Rich

 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  196 page decision
 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 
   SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
  The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
  MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
  94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
  04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
  

Re: [WISPA] Re: CALEA

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: CALEA


 Getting the data for the LEA is just one part of compliance. What about
 the more practical issues?

 CALEA requires:
 Establishment of policies and procedures for supervision and control of
 officers and employees

Who's got a coupel days to write legalese documents that detail everyting
they wanna know?

 Designating a 24/7/265 POC for the LEA

This means that no one or two man WISP can be compliant, unless you hire an
answering service, and have people on contact, or else have two of you on
duty 365 days a year, 12 hours a day.One man can't do it himself.

 Validating legal authorization for the ELSUR

What's ELSUR?   I thought I'd managed to uncover all the acronyms already..
Guess not.

 Maintaining secure and accurate records

A summary of all the records you have to maintain would be helpful.

 Reporting any CALEA security breaches




 AND... filling with the FCC how you are going to do the above.

 Not implementing the policies and procedures may result in legal
liability.

 Assuming you have all that is needed to be compliant how do you actually
 comply with an order? You are going to at least need to collect the
 following information:
 Telephone number/circuit ID
 Start date/time
 Officer presenting order
 Judge issuing order
 Type of ELSUR
 Supervising carrier personnel
 Certification of “senior official...”
 Subscriber name
 Date/time order served
 Court issuing order
 Court docket/file number
 Law enforcement officers authorized to receive info
 LEA contact numbers
 Carrier employees involved

 And what about the warrant's validity? CALEA requires the carrier to
 determine the following:
 Does the Court have jurisdiction over Carrier?
 Does the Court Order provide for Technical Assistance?
 Has the Court provided for compensation?
 If problems arise, how does the carrier address the issues –
 inside/outside counsel, Service Bureau, etc

 Just in case you are wondering, acting on an invalid subpoena is $1,000
 min fine. Further, if you are acting in bad faith, the court can create,
 at carrier expense, a court-supervised monitor of your compliance to
 ensure due diligence. Any violations detected by the monitor can result
 in additional fines.

 -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] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe
centralized system was a substantial part of the blame.  The same-service
radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through the
full-duxer...which, of course, drowned.

. . . J o n a t h a n 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk
to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities.
They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power
went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and
didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
perception, at least.

But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum doesn't
seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each
department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
problems.

Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a
rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


- Original Message -
From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
  opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
 
  (sigh).
 
  This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
 
 Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that drafted
 the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
 FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
 bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities
 converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could
 more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
 radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an
 evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency
 assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
 nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical
as
 the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved following
 the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
 replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
 congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
 connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
 unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
 funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
allocation -- 
 and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.

  Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's
needed,
  because it'll be down or something.
 
 Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment
 as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
 heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than
 for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
 network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.

 Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with
 no explaination.  Do you have any background or experience with public
 safety communications to help understand what you object to?  I don't
 understand either comment.  What's your beef?

 Rich

 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  196 page decision
 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 
   SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, 

Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
O ...  Interesting.   I had always wondered exactly why mobile units
were isolated.

Now I know.   Perhaps the fancy technology is a hindrance, rather than a
help.

Plain old PTT half duplex would work wonders, it seems.



- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 ...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe
 centralized system was a substantial part of the blame.  The same-service
 radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through
the
 full-duxer...which, of course, drowned.

 . . . J o n a t h a n

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

 Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to
talk
 to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
 coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
 was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
 hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications
facilities.
 They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the
power
 went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other,
and
 didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
 perception, at least.

 But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
 about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

 I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
 talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum
doesn't
 seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between
each
 department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
 problems.

 Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
 cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
 agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing
a
 rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

 I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
 national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
 outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


 - Original Message -
 From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander
massive
   opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
  
   (sigh).
  
   This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
  
  Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that
drafted
  the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
  FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
  bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding
communities
  converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers
could
  more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
  radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's
an
  evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in
frequency
  assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
  nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently
logical
 as
  the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved
following
  the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
  replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
  congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
  connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
  unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
  funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
 allocation -- 
  and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.
 
   Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's
 needed,
   because it'll be down or something.
  
  Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio
equipment
  as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
  heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio
than
  for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
  network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.
 
  Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications
with
  no explaination.  Do you 

RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Indeed.  

But, of course, as a 2X QCWA observer, it has been noted that 
it has been a hard fight to get attention for reliability over 
snazzy function.

Somewhere, a balance may be indicated.  

Snazzy is, of course, helpful.  It can save lives.

Reliablity is, of course, paramount.  It, also, saves lives.

Who is to say?  Apparently, the wrong folks.

. . . J o n a t h a n 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

O ...  Interesting.   I had always wondered exactly why mobile units
were isolated.

Now I know.   Perhaps the fancy technology is a hindrance, rather than a
help.

Plain old PTT half duplex would work wonders, it seems.



- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 ...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe
 centralized system was a substantial part of the blame.  The same-service
 radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through
the
 full-duxer...which, of course, drowned.

 . . . J o n a t h a n

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

 Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to
talk
 to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
 coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
 was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
 hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications
facilities.
 They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the
power
 went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other,
and
 didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
 perception, at least.

 But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
 about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

 I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
 talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum
doesn't
 seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between
each
 department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
 problems.

 Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
 cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
 agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing
a
 rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

 I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
 national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
 outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


 - Original Message -
 From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander
massive
   opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
  
   (sigh).
  
   This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
  
  Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that
drafted
  the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
  FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
  bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding
communities
  converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers
could
  more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
  radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's
an
  evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in
frequency
  assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
  nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently
logical
 as
  the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved
following
  the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
  replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
  congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
  connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
  unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
  funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
 allocation -- 
  and all allocations for public safety since 

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


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?


Spectrum congestion.

Cashflow

Speed.

Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money.



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.


Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place!



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?


I call the competitor on his cell phone.  Just like he does with me.

Your attidude, while pretty typical, is very short sighted.  The more we 
work together to keep the airways clean and maximize the investments, the 
better all of our networks run and the faster we can grow.


It's that silly ol' Together we stand thing.

I was watching a group of kids play Red Rover the other day.  I had to 
wonder how that game would turn out if the kids all tried to stand there and 
hold their OWN ground instead of working as a team.




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/ 


--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Grin

It's certainly a fuzzy one.  A unique connector was defined a few years 
back.  As I recall, It's one that's not commonly available to the average 
consumer.  It's one of the reasons that the old Orinoco cards had those 
goofy connectors on them.  They had to come up with something that wasn't 
common.


Yet, the FCC still certifies millions of Linksys devices with RPSMA 
connectors.  Go figure.


Like I said, I think that the FCC is MOSTLY worried about getting broadband 
out to people.  No harmful interference, and no blasting over the EIRP 
limits.  Other than that, they sure don't seem to care.


But if they ever do start to care, I hope to have my network in dang good 
shape when the man come a callin'.

marlon

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's 
Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval




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 

Re: [WISPA] need service in Bradenton, Fl

2007-04-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Travis, and all.

If this were in MY area YOU could service that customer!  How cool is that.

I'm tellin ya, if you want a cell phone type value (or something at least 
better than the average isp) we have to find a way to build national 
coverage.  And that means cooperation with other wisps.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: [WISPA] need service in Bradenton, Fl



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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ISPCON WISPA Reception

2007-04-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Thanks guys!  Way to go!
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:26 AM
Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON WISPA Reception


There will be a WISPA reception at ISPCON on Wednesday May 23rd at 6:30 to 
8:30 pm. I hope to see many of you there. We will have free drinks and 
appetizers thanks to Secure Email Plus (Frank Muto) and BearHill Security 
(Tim Kery).  These Vendor Members put up  the money for the reception. 
Please remember these guys when making buying decisions and give them your 
thanks for supporting our efforts. Thank you Frank and Tim!

Scriv
--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson
Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn 
customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over 
3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks, 
hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders, 
or any long-term debt whatsoever. :)


(OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year 
for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses 
by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a 
multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just 
cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates, 
better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.)


Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for 
less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;)


rant
Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless 
operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our 
wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless 
subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable 
since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking 
year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years 
(including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime 
(including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We 
deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using 
three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest 
fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We 
provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in 
our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area).

/rant

So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size 
and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time?


Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


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?


Spectrum congestion.

Cashflow

Speed.

Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money.



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.


Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place!



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?


I call the competitor on his cell phone.  Just like he does with me.

Your attidude, while pretty typical, is very short sighted.  The more 
we work together to keep the airways clean and maximize the 
investments, the better all of our networks run and the faster we can 
grow.


It's that silly ol' Together we stand thing.

I was watching a group of kids play Red Rover the other day.  I had to 
wonder how that game would turn out if the kids all tried to stand 
there and hold their OWN ground instead of working as a team.




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


Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Frank Crawford
Travis;
The router board also connects to a MiniPCI CM9 wireless board that
functions as a WiFi Access Point.

Page 5, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of trango's mesh manual, the trango atlas
radios are for backhaul.

hope this helps

frank


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 The Trango MESH box uses Trango radios (thus FCC certified) and an RB532
 for doing the routing. The RB is NOT providing any wireless service.

 Travis
 Microserv

 George Rogato wrote:
  If the mesh box that is a MT box is legit and certified, why not just
  drop trango from the picture?
  What is the purpose of trango ?
 
 
  Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Frank,
 
  Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
  Frank Crawford wrote:
  Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's
  in thier
  manual.
  Frank
 
  - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
 
 
  Rick,
 
  I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
  public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik
  systems out
  there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a
 
  system.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  ralph wrote:
 
  The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved
 
  system to
 
  start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for
 
  controversy
 
  from the beginning.
 
  Why would you do anything else?
 
  Ralph
 
   -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Smith, Rick
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
  We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using
  Mikrotik and
  SR5 / SR9 cards.
 
  Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the
  issue
  of will you fry our children ?
 
 
 
  -- 
  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] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

2007-04-27 Thread Travis Johnson




Good point. They must have gotten FCC approval as a complete system
over a year ago.

Travis
Microserv

Frank Crawford wrote:

  Travis;
"The router board also connects to a MiniPCI CM9 wireless board that
functions as a WiFi Access Point."

Page 5, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of trango's mesh manual, the trango atlas
radios are for backhaul.

hope this helps

frank


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


  
  
The Trango MESH box uses Trango radios (thus FCC certified) and an RB532
for doing the routing. The RB is NOT providing any wireless service.

Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:


  If the mesh box that is a MT box is legit and certified, why not just
drop trango from the picture?
What is the purpose of trango ?


Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  
  
Frank,

Then I would suggest Rick go the Trango route.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Frank Crawford wrote:


  Trango's mesh box uses rb532 plus daughter bd and mikrotik OS. It's
in thier
manual.
Frank

- Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?



  
  
Rick,

I have to agree with Ralph on this one. Since you have admitted on a
public list that you believe there are no certified Mikrotik
systems out
there it would not be in your best interest to start off with such a


  
  system.

  
  
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


ralph wrote:



  The first thing I'd do in a case like that, is use an FCC approved

  

  
  system to

  
  

  start with.  The fact that you don't plan to leaves you open for

  

  
  controversy

  
  

  from the beginning.

Why would you do anything else?

Ralph

 -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Smith, Rick
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

We're looking to provide service to a school nearby, using
Mikrotik and
SR5 / SR9 cards.

Anyone have proposals to a school with info in it addressing the
issue
of "will you fry our children" ?



  

-- 
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] Re: CALEA

2007-04-27 Thread Frank Muto

ELSUR = Electronic Surveillance


Frank Muto
President
FSM Marketing Group, Inc
www.SecureEmailPlus.com

ISPCON Spring 2007
May 23-25 in Orlando, FL.
LaunchPad Pavilion J












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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CALEA




- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: CALEA



Getting the data for the LEA is just one part of compliance. What about
the more practical issues?

CALEA requires:
Establishment of policies and procedures for supervision and control of
officers and employees


Who's got a coupel days to write legalese documents that detail everyting
they wanna know?


Designating a 24/7/265 POC for the LEA


This means that no one or two man WISP can be compliant, unless you hire 
an

answering service, and have people on contact, or else have two of you on
duty 365 days a year, 12 hours a day.One man can't do it himself.


Validating legal authorization for the ELSUR


What's ELSUR?   I thought I'd managed to uncover all the acronyms 
already..

Guess not.


Maintaining secure and accurate records


A summary of all the records you have to maintain would be helpful.


Reporting any CALEA security breaches






AND... filling with the FCC how you are going to do the above.

Not implementing the policies and procedures may result in legal

liability.


Assuming you have all that is needed to be compliant how do you actually
comply with an order? You are going to at least need to collect the
following information:
Telephone number/circuit ID
Start date/time
Officer presenting order
Judge issuing order
Type of ELSUR
Supervising carrier personnel
Certification of “senior official...”
Subscriber name
Date/time order served
Court issuing order
Court docket/file number
Law enforcement officers authorized to receive info
LEA contact numbers
Carrier employees involved

And what about the warrant's validity? CALEA requires the carrier to
determine the following:
Does the Court have jurisdiction over Carrier?
Does the Court Order provide for Technical Assistance?
Has the Court provided for compensation?
If problems arise, how does the carrier address the issues –
inside/outside counsel, Service Bureau, etc

Just in case you are wondering, acting on an invalid subpoena is $1,000
min fine. Further, if you are acting in bad faith, the court can create,
at carrier expense, a court-supervised monitor of your compliance to
ensure due diligence. Any violations detected by the monitor can result
in additional fines.

-Matt


--
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] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Ug.

Won't be reading THAT one anytime soon!
marlon

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



196 page decision

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf

SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt 



--
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

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I have to come to Marlon's defense a bit here.The idaho falls /
pocatello area has DRAMATICALLY more people than the central washington
wasteland Marlon serves.

You serve the populated areas of Bonneville, Bingham and Bannock Counties,
if I estimate your coverage.  This approaches a quarter million people, at
least for the three counties, it does.

Marlon's town is about 1000 people, Lincoln and Adams  County together have
less than 30K people, and his main competition is a utility which is using
it's financial might to subsidize buried fiber to every home in Grant
County.

I have seen Marlon's territory, driven through it, and seen his operation.
It's a collection of small  community markets.  I would say that in spite of
being small, he probably has considerably higher market share than you do,
for the places he covers.

None of this is to disparage anyone.   But you can't compare apples and
oranges like that and have it make any sense at all.   I suspect you'd
struggle mightily to adapt to marlon's situation... and vice versa.

Let's not go off on each other here..  We have much better targets to aim
at.

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn
 customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over
 3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks,
 hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders,
 or any long-term debt whatsoever. :)

 (OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year
 for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses
 by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a
 multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just
 cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates,
 better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.)

 Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for
 less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;)

 rant
 Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless
 operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our
 wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless
 subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable
 since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking
 year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years
 (including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime
 (including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We
 deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using
 three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest
 fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We
 provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in
 our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area).
 /rant

 So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size
 and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
  - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
 
 
  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?
 
  Spectrum congestion.
 
  Cashflow
 
  Speed.
 
  Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money.
 
 
  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.
 
  Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place!
 
 
  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?
 
  I call the competitor on his cell phone.  Just like he does with me.
 
  Your attidude, while pretty typical, is very short sighted.  The more
  we work together to keep the airways clean and maximize the
  investments, the better all of our networks run and the faster we can
  grow.
 
  It's that silly ol' Together we stand thing.
 
  I was watching a group of kids play Red Rover the other day.  I had to
  wonder how that game would turn out if the kids all tried to stand
  there and hold their OWN ground instead of working as a team.
 
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
 
  - Original Message - From: George Rogato
  

Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

I didn't read it all, just scanned a bit and read some summaries, but
there's NOTHING GOOD in it for us.   Not much good in it for consumers,
either.

Basically, the FCC is gunning for the big bucks on the spectrum auction and
there's NO spectrum considered, as best I can tell, for use for small WISP
use.   Rather, it's regionally and market sized auctions for the most part,
and then something or other about cellular market auctions.   I dunno what
all those mean, but I can predict it's nothing I'll ever get to use.

Too bad.  The same financial and practical reasons that have slowed telco
and cablco broadband to the thinly populated areas will result in this just
being another overlay of services on top of places already served, and
unlikely to be any more cost effective than any other services now out
there, and likely less.





- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 Ug.

 Won't be reading THAT one anytime soon!
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


  196 page decision
 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 
  SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
  The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
  MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
  94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
  04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt
 
 
  -- 
  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/