[WISPA] Google Buys Postini
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/09/ap3893605.html Google Inc. said Monday it agreed to buy Postini, which provides security software for electronic communications, for $625 million in cash. Google (nasdaq: GOOG http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr= GOOG - news http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=GOOG - people http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0name=ticker=G OOG ) plans to operate the company as a subsidiary in its Google Apps unit, which includes its e-mail, calendar and documents applications. --- Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technology Services - WISP Consulting - Tower Services WEB: http://www.mtin.net WEB: http://www.metrospan.net WEB: http://www.findfastinternet.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 - The Other View
Scriv: I disagree your statement that If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is ATT a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I wish it were the case that the existence of new spectrum such as 700 MHz results in new services. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world. We have ample precedent that those who acquire spectrum largely DON'T use it; thus I remain skeptical that 700 MHz will translate to ... a means of delivering broadband in rural areas... as you state. The main reason for this is, and it's a mild criticism of the worldview of the average WISP, is that rural areas are not a priority for large companies (that have the deep pockets to win spectrum auctions). Simply, brutally put, rural areas aren't where the money is. You don't need any better evidence of this than Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications companies (and a potential bidder for 700 MHz) is DIVESTING itself of its operations in entire rural states, such as Maine. So... will 700 MHz licenses in rural areas be snapped up, probably by large companies? Oh yes indeed! Does it follow that those new owners of 700 MHz licenses will actually build out systems in rural areas? No, largely because experience argues just the opposite - check out how many systems Aloha Partners discusses having constructed, considering that Aloha currently owns 12MHz of spectrum covering 60% of the United States - including all of the top 10 markets and 84% of the population in the top 40 markets. Answer... none. Aloha Partners is sitting on its spectrum, hoping it will appreciate, maybe that some bigger player will buy it, and they'll end up with a tidy profit on its investment. Or maybe they're just waiting for better, cheaper systems to emerge. Or they're waiting for... whatever. The bottom line is that there are no Broadband Systems being built with that particular spectrum, and no new customers being served, no additional competition for Broadband services being brought to bear. But mostly I'm disappointed what you chose to focus in the article on was my mild criticism of WISPA's participation in a closed door collaboration with very large companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, etc. regarding television whitespaces. No, I wasn't griping about being (individually) excluded from the discussions. My criticism was much more broad - I felt that the entire WISPA membership... and the WISP community as a whole, was excluded from the discussions. This from an organization which prides itself on being open, transparent, democratic, and of, by, and for WISPs? It didn't seem that way to me, and that closed door mindset was, to me, a worrisome development for WISPA. Even more worrisome is that WISPA's leadership, reflected by your attitude, is defensive and apparently proud of their closed doors participation in the television whitespaces collaboration with Intel, etc. But those are the comments of one WISP industry observer. If you choose to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the actual comments and criticisms, so be it. Thanks, Steve On 7/8/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Stroh and I usually see things the same way. We have somewhat varying views on the 700 MHz auction coming up. Here are his views on the upcoming 700 MHz auction. http://www.wispnews.net/2007/07/my-take-on-700-.html It is important to note that part of what is going to happen is that there will be new WISPs once this spectrum sells. Some of them will look very different from the WISPs we generally see now. I have done my part to attempt to make this opportunity available to WISPs who are in place now through the formation of the 700 MHz Committee. I have little doubt that many licenses will go to people who are not now WISPs. If they use the spectrum to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. The future of 700 MHz use as a means of delivering broadband in rural areas will bear fruit. How well it does this and how soon are primarily a factor of how much money and work are put to work to make it happen. I will not pretend to think I know what all will happen. I simply know that the physics
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
Steve/John: I worked with local rural WISP operator in rural foothills Nothern California. He told me that the large carrier told him they typically seek at least a block of 10,000 rural customers before entering a rural space. This is anecdotal and I searching the web for evidence of this rule of thumb. The WiSP that I worked with has about 700-800 subscribers and used the Motorola product portfolio. Felix --- Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scriv: I disagree your statement that If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is ATT a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I wish it were the case that the existence of new spectrum such as 700 MHz results in new services. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world. We have ample precedent that those who acquire spectrum largely DON'T use it; thus I remain skeptical that 700 MHz will translate to ... a means of delivering broadband in rural areas... as you state. The main reason for this is, and it's a mild criticism of the worldview of the average WISP, is that rural areas are not a priority for large companies (that have the deep pockets to win spectrum auctions). Simply, brutally put, rural areas aren't where the money is. You don't need any better evidence of this than Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications companies (and a potential bidder for 700 MHz) is DIVESTING itself of its operations in entire rural states, such as Maine. So... will 700 MHz licenses in rural areas be snapped up, probably by large companies? Oh yes indeed! Does it follow that those new owners of 700 MHz licenses will actually build out systems in rural areas? No, largely because experience argues just the opposite - check out how many systems Aloha Partners discusses having constructed, considering that Aloha currently owns 12MHz of spectrum covering 60% of the United States - including all of the top 10 markets and 84% of the population in the top 40 markets. Answer... none. Aloha Partners is sitting on its spectrum, hoping it will appreciate, maybe that some bigger player will buy it, and they'll end up with a tidy profit on its investment. Or maybe they're just waiting for better, cheaper systems to emerge. Or they're waiting for... whatever. The bottom line is that there are no Broadband Systems being built with that particular spectrum, and no new customers being served, no additional competition for Broadband services being brought to bear. But mostly I'm disappointed what you chose to focus in the article on was my mild criticism of WISPA's participation in a closed door collaboration with very large companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, etc. regarding television whitespaces. No, I wasn't griping about being (individually) excluded from the discussions. My criticism was much more broad - I felt that the entire WISPA membership... and the WISP community as a whole, was excluded from the discussions. This from an organization which prides itself on being open, transparent, democratic, and of, by, and for WISPs? It didn't seem that way to me, and that closed door mindset was, to me, a worrisome development for WISPA. Even more worrisome is that WISPA's leadership, reflected by your attitude, is defensive and apparently proud of their closed doors participation in the television whitespaces collaboration with Intel, etc. But those are the comments of one WISP industry observer. If you choose to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the actual comments and criticisms, so be it. Thanks, Steve On 7/8/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Stroh and I usually see things the same way. We have somewhat varying views on the 700 MHz auction coming up. Here are his views on the upcoming 700 MHz auction. http://www.wispnews.net/2007/07/my-take-on-700-.html It is important to note that part of what is going to happen is that there will be new WISPs once this spectrum sells. Some of them will look very different from the WISPs we generally see now. I have done my part to attempt to
Re: [WISPA] Google Buys Postini
It was this, or Google taking the risk of paying more after an IPO. There has been talk of a Postini IPO the past few months and since Google already was using Postini from a deal a few months ago, this perhaps was the next logical step. Google is only offering the Enterprise Edition so this does not effect those already offering Postini through an ISP, Webhost, VAR or MSP. In fact I anticipate an increase awareness of Postini and for our resellers as well. We offer both the Service Provider and Enterprise Editions' and also pair them either with our hosted email or ala carte. Frank Muto President FSM Marketing Group, Inc. Postini Partner www.SecureEmailPlus.com Hosted Email - IMAP, POP3 Web Mail 2.0 Toll Free - 800-246-7740 Direct - 630-258-7422 - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/09/ap3893605.html Google Inc. said Monday it agreed to buy Postini, which provides security software for electronic communications, for $625 million in cash. Google (nasdaq: GOOG http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr= GOOG - news http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=GOOG - people http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0name=ticker=G OOG ) plans to operate the company as a subsidiary in its Google Apps unit, which includes its e-mail, calendar and documents applications. --- Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Google Buys Postini
WOW. $60 per eyeball, is a pretty excellent evaluation for an Email company, which service has very few provisions to guarantee locking the clients. What will be interesting is to see what Google does with it. Whether they are buying the Business eyeballs, or Merging its technology into the Gmail revolution or vice versa. This brings up an interesting question How many WISPs serving Businesses have taken a total user count versus connection/subscriber count? If you provided the Email or Delivered non-blockable Browser adds, such as in title bar, one could possible argue another one-quater to one-half annual revenue of worth, considering eyeball value, using this Google transaction as a comparable. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] Google Buys Postini http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/09/ap3893605.html Google Inc. said Monday it agreed to buy Postini, which provides security software for electronic communications, for $625 million in cash. Google (nasdaq: GOOG http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr= GOOG - news http://www.forbes.com/markets/company_news.jhtml?ticker=GOOG - people http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=0name=ticker=G OOG ) plans to operate the company as a subsidiary in its Google Apps unit, which includes its e-mail, calendar and documents applications. --- Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technology Services - WISP Consulting - Tower Services WEB: http://www.mtin.net WEB: http://www.metrospan.net WEB: http://www.findfastinternet.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 - The Other View
Steve, I see your reply comments to translate to a reason for support of unlicensed use of the spectrum. Which is better... To establish policy that creates the best odds that ... 1) Spectrum will be used. 2) Spectrum will be used most efficiently, when it is used. 3) Spectrum will without compromise work for a purpose that it was purchased for. 4) Generates the most revenue, assumming, if someone will pay more, it must have a grander need being solved, or at minimum an incentive to deploy to get an ROI, and the finance to deploy if they can afford to win an auction. I think many advocates push for solving issue 2, 3, and/or 4, and therefore push for Licensed, most often to the highest bidder. But the truth is, history shows, that that mentality does not always lead to deployment of spectrum, nor best serving the public. I think where the problem lies is people try to corolate the value of spectrum to a business case, meaning the value of the service judged by what people will pay for it. This is so not true. A perfect example are RUS commiunity grants, where the governement justifies millions to be spent to serve under 500 people, after considering all the econonmic development needs solved by these grants and side effects of these grants. Another example might be, serving the poor or the meduically handicapped, which may need the service, but not be able to pay for it. I'd argue, that its better for something to be used, and guarantee that that benefit will occur, even if it trades away the ability to utilize the spectrum optimally. The one case study that is undisputable is that, Spectrum allocated to unlicenced, will get used, because there is no barrier to entry in order to use it. The cost justification goes away. It just gets used, until there is nothing left of it to be used because interference prevents it. Whats best is that this idea has been replicated 100% of the time in all case studies. Starting out in 2.4Ghz, 5 years later in many places the noise floor is to high for uts use, then 5.8Ghz comes, now saturated 5 years alter also, now 5.3G is on its way, etc, etc. As much as I dream of Licensed 700 for WISPs, the reality of that is slim, and its hard to support the licensed of it, on an auction basis. An Auction basis, just reduces the chances that the spectrum will get used by the most amount of people in the most amounts of usages. Its almost to the point where I see no other option but to support exclusively Unlicensed use of 700Mhz. But then Efforts like, Scrivner's/WISPA's, that are fighting for auction rules that give WISPs an actual real chance to get a peice of 700Mhz licensed Spectrum, come along with clever ideas to give small WISPs a competitive advantage to possible be able to win spectrum. The possibility that there are actually 7-10 WISPs (that have joined the 700M committee), that are not telcos, that think the might have the possibilty to win an auction in their rural area, is a start to that dream becoming a reality. It is unquestionable, that if WISPs win rights to unlicenced spectrum, they will deploy and use the spectrum, it is inevitable. More rules and policy need to be made that spreads out the spectrum netween more people to enhance the chances spectrum will be used, and the closer (layers deep) the spectrum comes to be reachable by the common man, the larger number of potential users there are, thus raising the chance it will be used. A WISP is the closest layer to the general public, but that is not the general public, and has expertise to utilize the spectrum wisely. I'd argue that finding ways to let WISPs win licensed is just about as good as unlicenced use. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View Scriv: I disagree your statement that If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is ATT a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I wish it were the case that the existence of new
Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator
Just got off a vacation and picked up this thread. I have the same off on problem when I put my UPS inline on generator power. The batteries do not charge, instead they drain, even when adjusting the sensitivity. So I guess I have a 2-part question... 1. What portable gasoline generators have people been successful with using the APC Smart-UPS 700VA or higher? Successful meaning the generator provides power and the UPS charges its batteries. 2. It's still not clear whether or not these larger generators with automatic transfer switches can run clean enough power to do the same? JohnnyO I'd like to hear about what you've got along these lines that's affordable. Thanks. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Low cost generator We have the exact same generator as well - - only a 16KW - - we too ordered it from Lowes and it was $2900.00 with a $200.00 rebate. It was drop shipped to the NOC - - -and no - - - - we haven't had a single power outage either since we bought and installed it 8 months ago :-) I hear it fire up and run on occasions, but I am still waiting to see it fire up when it really counts. Mac *-Original Message- *From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On *Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 10:56 PM *To: WISPA General List *Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator * * I'm in the market for a generator and came across this one. * *[ snipped link ] * *That's either the very same generator I have, or very close to it. * *(Actually, it's just very close. Ours can run on either propane or *natural gas, and it's presently wired up for the latter.) * *Sadly, in the five months since we moved to our new office, with that *fancy new generator, we haven't had a single power outage. Not so much *as *a flicker. It pops on once a week for its exercise cycle, and I've done *the flip the big switch and make sure the generator fires up test a *couple times, so I assume it works.) * *As with any big purchase, shop around. Ours was $500 cheaper than the *price on that Web site; we just had Lowe's special-order it for us. * *David Smith *MVN.net * *-- *WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org * *Subscribe/Unsubscribe: *http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless * *Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Trango TLink-10-EXT
Anyone got a pair of these they'd be willing to sell? Hit me off list, please as soon as you can. And if you have their antennas (flat panel dual-pol with SMA jumpers, I'd like to hear that, too). Thanks! Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 - The Other View
Tom: Agreed that WISPs can make very effective use of license-exempt spectrum. And if I thought that it was a reasonable thing to posit that 700 MHz should become mostly license-exempt (public safety portion being the exception), I would do so. But, that 700 MHz will be auctioned off to the hightest bidders as exclusive geographic licenses is a foregone conclusion. It's going to happen, so I'm not wasting time bemoaning that. Nor do I have any realistic hope that the FCC will be so enlightened as to offer favorable conditions to WISPs and other small bidders. Every time they've done that, it's been BADLY gamed; the small players very often ended up being shills for the bigger players. So I think they've learned their lesson on that. And I hope I didn't give the impression that no WISPs could make use of 700 MHz. If so, my apologies. What I did try to say that it's going to be TOUGH to do so, between bidding against deep-pocketed speculators, the equipment issue, much higher engineering costs, etc. I fully expect that some WISPs will get 700 MHz spectrum, and a few of those will deploy it, and a few of those will actually make a profit from such services. But those will be the exception. Thanks, Steve On 7/9/07, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, I see your reply comments to translate to a reason for support of unlicensed use of the spectrum. Which is better... To establish policy that creates the best odds that ... 1) Spectrum will be used. 2) Spectrum will be used most efficiently, when it is used. 3) Spectrum will without compromise work for a purpose that it was purchased for. 4) Generates the most revenue, assumming, if someone will pay more, it must have a grander need being solved, or at minimum an incentive to deploy to get an ROI, and the finance to deploy if they can afford to win an auction. I think many advocates push for solving issue 2, 3, and/or 4, and therefore push for Licensed, most often to the highest bidder. But the truth is, history shows, that that mentality does not always lead to deployment of spectrum, nor best serving the public. I think where the problem lies is people try to corolate the value of spectrum to a business case, meaning the value of the service judged by what people will pay for it. This is so not true. A perfect example are RUS commiunity grants, where the governement justifies millions to be spent to serve under 500 people, after considering all the econonmic development needs solved by these grants and side effects of these grants. Another example might be, serving the poor or the meduically handicapped, which may need the service, but not be able to pay for it. I'd argue, that its better for something to be used, and guarantee that that benefit will occur, even if it trades away the ability to utilize the spectrum optimally. The one case study that is undisputable is that, Spectrum allocated to unlicenced, will get used, because there is no barrier to entry in order to use it. The cost justification goes away. It just gets used, until there is nothing left of it to be used because interference prevents it. Whats best is that this idea has been replicated 100% of the time in all case studies. Starting out in 2.4Ghz, 5 years later in many places the noise floor is to high for uts use, then 5.8Ghz comes, now saturated 5 years alter also, now 5.3G is on its way, etc, etc. As much as I dream of Licensed 700 for WISPs, the reality of that is slim, and its hard to support the licensed of it, on an auction basis. An Auction basis, just reduces the chances that the spectrum will get used by the most amount of people in the most amounts of usages. Its almost to the point where I see no other option but to support exclusively Unlicensed use of 700Mhz. But then Efforts like, Scrivner's/WISPA's, that are fighting for auction rules that give WISPs an actual real chance to get a peice of 700Mhz licensed Spectrum, come along with clever ideas to give small WISPs a competitive advantage to possible be able to win spectrum. The possibility that there are actually 7-10 WISPs (that have joined the 700M committee), that are not telcos, that think the might have the possibilty to win an auction in their rural area, is a start to that dream becoming a reality. It is unquestionable, that if WISPs win rights to unlicenced spectrum, they will deploy and use the spectrum, it is inevitable. More rules and policy need to be made that spreads out the spectrum netween more people to enhance the chances spectrum will be used, and the closer (layers deep) the spectrum comes to be reachable by the common man, the larger number of potential users there are, thus raising the chance it will be used. A WISP is the closest layer to the general public, but that is not the general public, and has expertise to utilize the spectrum wisely. I'd argue that finding ways to let WISPs win licensed is just about as good as unlicenced use. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
On 7/9/07, Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scriv: I disagree your statement that If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is ATT a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. A WISP is a Wireless Internet Service Provider. Any further definition is not needed. That does not mean that all WISPs are created equal, nor does it discount the larger players from being WISPs. We were certain that larger WISPs would eventually emerge and be part of WISPA and made sure each company only gets one vote because of that. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I did not dispute that part of your article. Caution is good. I wish it were the case that the existence of new spectrum such as 700 MHz results in new services. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world. We have ample precedent that those who acquire spectrum largely DON'T use it; thus I remain skeptical that 700 MHz will translate to ... a means of delivering broadband in rural areas... as you state. The main reason for this is, and it's a mild criticism of the worldview of the average WISP, is that rural areas are not a priority for large companies (that have the deep pockets to win spectrum auctions). Simply, brutally put, rural areas aren't where the money is. You don't need any better evidence of this than Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications companies (and a potential bidder for 700 MHz) is DIVESTING itself of its operations in entire rural states, such as Maine. Just because it has not been done much yet does not mean we should not try to do it. Actually it is the only reason why we have a shot at it IMO. So... will 700 MHz licenses in rural areas be snapped up, probably by large companies? Oh yes indeed! Does it follow that those new owners of 700 MHz licenses will actually build out systems in rural areas? No, largely because experience argues just the opposite - check out how many systems Aloha Partners discusses having constructed, considering that Aloha currently owns 12MHz of spectrum covering 60% of the United States - including all of the top 10 markets and 84% of the population in the top 40 markets. Answer... none. Aloha Partners is sitting on its spectrum, hoping it will appreciate, maybe that some bigger player will buy it, and they'll end up with a tidy profit on its investment. Or maybe they're just waiting for better, cheaper systems to emerge. Or they're waiting for... whatever. The bottom line is that there are no Broadband Systems being built with that particular spectrum, and no new customers being served, no additional competition for Broadband services being brought to bear. I will get you data on systems serving rural areas with 700 MHz shortly. It is being done and with good success in some areas. But mostly I'm disappointed what you chose to focus in the article on was my mild criticism of WISPA's participation in a closed door collaboration with very large companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, etc. regarding television whitespaces. No, I wasn't griping about being (individually) excluded from the discussions. My criticism was much more broad - I felt that the entire WISPA membership... and the WISP community as a whole, was excluded from the discussions. This from an organization which prides itself on being open, transparent, democratic, and of, by, and for WISPs? It didn't seem that way to me, and that closed door mindset was, to me, a worrisome development for WISPA. Even more worrisome is that WISPA's leadership, reflected by your attitude, is defensive and apparently proud of their closed doors participation in the television whitespaces collaboration with Intel, etc. I am not being defensive as much as I am clarifying that there were no clouded problems created from the 50 or so emails shared between a few companies who all wanted to see us get unlicensed access to white spaces. Policy of WISPA was not discussed. But those are the comments of one WISP industry observer. If you choose to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the actual comments and criticisms, so be it. I think you are reading tone or content that does not exist. I simply clarified my position on what I read in your article. I even went
Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator
Are the generators you guys have trouble with the inverter type? These are basically an alternator and an inverter tied together. I know Honda makes a number of them. The inverter type generates a square wave to simulate a sine wave, which may cause your trouble. Jason Mark Nash wrote: Just got off a vacation and picked up this thread. I have the same "off on" problem when I put my UPS inline on generator power. The batteries do not charge, instead they drain, even when adjusting the sensitivity. So I guess I have a 2-part question... 1. What portable gasoline generators have people been successful with using the APC Smart-UPS 700VA or higher? Successful meaning the generator provides power and the UPS charges its batteries. 2. It's still not clear whether or not these larger generators with automatic transfer switches can run clean enough power to do the same? JohnnyO I'd like to hear about what you've got along these lines that's affordable. Thanks. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'WISPA General List'" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Low cost generator We have the exact same generator as well - - only a 16KW - - we too ordered it from Lowes and it was $2900.00 with a $200.00 rebate. It was drop shipped to the NOC - - -and no - - - - we haven't had a single power outage either since we bought and installed it 8 months ago :-) I hear it fire up and run on occasions, but I am still waiting to see it fire up when it really counts. Mac *-Original Message- *From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On *Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 10:56 PM *To: WISPA General List *Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator * * I'm in the market for a generator and came across this one. * *[ snipped link ] * *That's either the very same generator I have, or very close to it. * *(Actually, it's just "very close." Ours can run on either propane or *natural gas, and it's presently wired up for the latter.) * *Sadly, in the five months since we moved to our new office, with that *fancy new generator, we haven't had a single power outage. Not so much *as *a flicker. It pops on once a week for its exercise cycle, and I've done *the "flip the big switch and make sure the generator fires up" test a *couple times, so I assume it works.) * *As with any big purchase, shop around. Ours was $500 cheaper than the *price on that Web site; we just had Lowe's special-order it for us. * *David Smith *MVN.net * *-- *WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org * *Subscribe/Unsubscribe: *http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless * *Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 - The Other View
John: I didn't say that no use was being made of 700 MHz. Yes, there is, mostly by rural telephone companies, and of course, Qualcomm's MediaFlo television system. But those are the exception - to my knowledge, Aloha Partners (the largest owner of 700 MHz spectrum...) hasn't deployed any systems within the spectrum that it owns, and that's endemic of the problem(s) with 700 MHz. My comments about WISPA and television whitespace don't seem to be contributing much to the discussion, so I'll apologize to you and those involved in those discussions and not bring it up again. Thanks, Steve On 7/9/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A WISP is a Wireless Internet Service Provider. Any further definition is not needed. That does not mean that all WISPs are created equal, nor does it discount the larger players from being WISPs. We were certain that larger WISPs would eventually emerge and be part of WISPA and made sure each company only gets one vote because of that. I did not dispute that part of your article. Caution is good. Just because it has not been done much yet does not mean we should not try to do it. Actually it is the only reason why we have a shot at it IMO. I will get you data on systems serving rural areas with 700 MHz shortly. It is being done and with good success in some areas. I am not being defensive as much as I am clarifying that there were no clouded problems created from the 50 or so emails shared between a few companies who all wanted to see us get unlicensed access to white spaces. Policy of WISPA was not discussed. I think you are reading tone or content that does not exist. I simply clarified my position on what I read in your article. I even went so far as to mention that I consider you a friend and that we usually see eye to eye. I think you are getting yourself ruffled over nothing. Best regards, Scriv -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0700, Mark Nash wrote: Just got off a vacation and picked up this thread. I have the same off on problem when I put my UPS inline on generator power. The batteries do not charge, instead they drain, even when adjusting the sensitivity. Have you measured the voltage coming out of the generator? -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator
Also... What generator models/brands have you used with the APC700 UPSs, and had troubles? Maybe we can compare similarities to the various Generators that gave problems. To identify what we are dealing with. It has not been conclusively defined for sure whether this is a UPS or Generator problem. I recognize that the original post had to do with finding a generator that worked with existing deployed APC UPSs. But I have not seen these results with the generators that I have used and our Triplite Smart UPSs. Doesn;t mean there couldn;t be a problem, nor am I contesting that the APC700 has a problem with some generators. This is just a scary topic for me, as I was about to go buy a bunch of APC smart 700 UPSs, and thinking maybe I should reconsider staying with Tripplite. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0700, Mark Nash wrote: Just got off a vacation and picked up this thread. I have the same off on problem when I put my UPS inline on generator power. The batteries do not charge, instead they drain, even when adjusting the sensitivity. Have you measured the voltage coming out of the generator? -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: Searching for a Maine WISP
Searching for a Maine WISPHi Laura, Things are plenty busy here! Growth was high last year, it's double this year. Amazing stuff. I've not heard from Nathan of late. Or, if I did I missed it. I've cc'd the two biggest groups of WISPs on this note. If anyone knows of a provider in Maine they'll touch base with you. For those that don't know Laura, she's involved in an effort to keep the 900mhz spectrum clear of some rules that will make our lives much harder in that band. She should be supported. Take care! 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: Laura Stefani To: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Searching for a Maine WISP Hi Marlon, How are you? We are plugging along on the 900 MHz proceeding - has Nathan been keeping you informed? I wonder if I can get your help again - we are looking for a WISP working in the mid-coast area of Maine. Any ideas? Thanks! Laura Laura Stefani, Esq. Goldberg, Godles, Wiener Wright (202) 429-4900 Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
comments? 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: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. E-mail Bob Egelko at [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTL This article appeared on page B - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? 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: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is grandstanding to try to get something from the court system which nobody else gets. I have had to satisfy two subpoena's in the past thirty days... I wonder how many other members of the committie have seen this kind of activity... Totally uncharacteristic
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
- Original Message - From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View Scriv: I disagree your statement that If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is ATT a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. Yes, all of those companies are indeed WISPs. Wireless Internet Service Provider. Well, ok, many of them don't know what service is, but you get the idea. WISPA was designed to paint with a wide brush. The day will come when those folks will join WISPA. Heck, Google already has. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I agree with that stand. BUT, just because it could be hard or frustrating is no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. IF we can get the spectrum, and IF we can get cheap radio cards (software defined radio is closer all of the time) then we'll be able to use any linux based platform to drive them. Think StarOS and Mikrotik. As for antennas, out here many people still have their TV antennas up. I've not checked for sure yet, but I'll bet we could use those for internet access! I wish it were the case that the existence of new spectrum such as 700 MHz results in new services. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world. We have ample precedent that those who acquire spectrum largely DON'T use it; thus I remain skeptical that 700 MHz will translate to ... a means of delivering broadband in rural areas... as you state. The main reason for this is, and it's a mild criticism of the worldview of the average WISP, is that rural areas are not a priority for large companies (that have the deep pockets to win spectrum auctions). Simply, brutally put, rural areas aren't where the money is. You don't need any better evidence of this than Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications companies (and a potential bidder for 700 MHz) is DIVESTING itself of its operations in entire rural states, such as Maine. Yeah. But in this case, that helps us. Let 'em leave. We'll still be here. It's take a while but I'm starting to get DSL customers. Not because of the price or the way that the DSL works. There are two things happening. A: People are dropping their land lines and going to cable or wireless internet and cell phones. B: People are sick and tired of the way that the mega corps treat them. So... will 700 MHz licenses in rural areas be snapped up, probably by large companies? Oh yes indeed! Does it follow that those new owners of 700 MHz licenses will actually build out systems in rural areas? No, largely because experience argues just the opposite - check out how many systems Aloha Partners discusses having constructed, considering that Aloha currently owns 12MHz of spectrum covering 60% of the United States - including all of the top 10 markets and 84% of the population in the top 40 markets. Answer... none. Aloha Partners is sitting on its spectrum, hoping it will appreciate, maybe that some bigger player will buy it, and they'll end up with a tidy profit on its investment. Or maybe they're just waiting for better, cheaper systems to emerge. Or they're waiting for... whatever. The bottom line is that there are no Broadband Systems being built with that particular spectrum, and no new customers being served, no additional competition for Broadband services being brought to bear. Precicely why it's so important to get any new spectrum into the hands of the WISP market. We've proven that we WILL use any spectrum that we can get our hands on! The FIRST legislative goal that the FCC has to fulfill is to benefit the most comsumers. Auctions are a dismal failure. I predict that the auction mechanism will go away. Sure there is a lot of money raised. But it's still not even a drop in the federal bucket. AND it's doing the consumer NO good. The pressure for efficient USE of the spectrum is getting very high. I remember talking to people close to Aloha. Everyone was excited because they were gonna go to work. Didn't happen. It's too bad that they didn't sublet the spectrum out to us. Looks to me like you are right on this one. They just wanted it for an
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
Been in business for over 3 years and haven't had one yet *knock on wood*. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Michael Erskine wrote: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? 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: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is grandstanding to try to get something from the court system which nobody else gets. I have had to satisfy two subpoena's
[WISPA] FCC SDR Regs
On July 6, 2007, new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations in the United States went into effect on devices that use software-defined radio (SDR) technologies. These devices include wireless access points, cell phones, PDA's, wireless network cards, etc. The FCC ruling will make it more difficult for manufacturers to get approval for these types of devices in this country. Accoring to the FCC the regulations are based primarily on safety and will attempt to stop users from doing things like modifying the source code of the devices to boost power or change frequencies of the devices. http://ictcenter.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-federal-regulations-will-have.html Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
We are seeing about one per month right now. Mainly child porn stuff. :( Travis Microserv Sam Tetherow wrote: Been in business for over 3 years and haven't had one yet *knock on wood*. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Michael Erskine wrote: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: comments? 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: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer to on-topic :-) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTLtsp=1 Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but nobody got upset. I even participated. I'm not sure how this is closer to on-topic, but ... SAN FRANCISCO Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 7, 2007 Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. A subpoena *is* required. In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the pen register devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves. A subpoena *is* required. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls. A subpoena *is* required. Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime. OK. This smacks of sensational journalism. The author is making all sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and your email contacts. This is about what is on the envelope, not what is in the envelope. They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile. Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap order. No change in existing law. In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages. In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper mail and magazine subscription information when you release that information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post office). Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed. The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling. Both of which require a subpoena. This author is writing this article to make sensational news of a non-news court decision. NO PRECEDENT was set here. Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy. Good. Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence. Did they present a subpoena to his ISP? Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said. The expert was presumably the ISP. The information would then have had to be obtained under subpoena. Once the court orders the ISP to provide the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied The ruling further erodes our privacy, the attorney said. The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it. The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is
[WISPA] House committee members ask FCC to reject Frontline
http://mrtmag.com/news/house_fcc_frontline_070607/ House committee members ask FCC to reject Frontline Jul 6, 2007 2:19 PM, By Donny Jackson A Republican-dominated group of House Commerce Committee members this week released a letter sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin asking that the Frontline Wireless proposal be dismissed and let the 700 MHz commercial auction proceed with no public-safety, wholesale or open-access obligations. Frontline has proposed that the FCC establish a 10 MHz “E block” in the auction, with the winner of the spectrum being obligated to negotiate with a national public-safety licensee to build a nationwide wireless broadband network using the E block airwaves and 12 MHz of adjacent public-safety frequencies. The Frontline plan also calls for the E block licensee to provide only wholesale service to customers other than public safety and agree to open-access requirements. Signed by 12 Republicans—most notably, ranking committee member Joe Barton (R-Texas)—and four junior Democrats, the letter states that including the latter obligations in commercial spectrum rules would be “inappropriate.” “Suggestions to impose wholesale and so-called open access requirements … are blatant poison pills to discourage competing bids and to lower the price of spectrum,” the letter states. “Business models should be left to the market, not hard-wired into auctions.” While supporting the notion of a public-private partnership on public safety’s 12 MHz of spectrum, the letter cites several potential risks involved with putting public-safety obligations on the E block, because the public-safety requirements would not be solidified for some time. “The odds of crafting precisely the right auction conditions, that create precisely the right model and that result in precisely the right winner, who will then agree to public safety’s requirements, are minimal at best,” the letter states. “We are likely to be left with no bidder, or a winner who will neither meet the needs of public safety nor relinquish the license without a fight.” Frontline Wireless Vice Chairman Reed Hundt this week said Frontline’s proposal would not preclude existing wireless carriers like Verizon Wireless and ATT Mobility—formerly know as Cingular Wireless—from bidding on the E block spectrum. However, Frontline’s updated proposed rules would require the E block licensee to “be limited to providing service to public safety users, entities that provide retail service and products to end users, and providers and operators of critical infrastructure”—a stipulation that carriers with millions of retail consumer customers almost certainly would be willing to follow. With this in mind, the letter asks Martin to reject the Frontline plan. “Let us not mistake this proposal for what it is: yet another attempt to get valuable spectrum on the cheap,” the letter states. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] House committee members ask FCC to reject Frontline
What bothers me most on this comment is the Last closing line... “Let us not mistake this proposal for what it is: yet another attempt to get valuable spectrum on the cheap,” the letter states. That mentality would also probably be used against any WISP attempting to get unlicensed use or preferencial treatment to get lower cost on licensed use of spectrum. I'd rather support Frontline than support the apposing view, that is more or less supporting the principle that spectrum goes to the guy with the most money. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:40 AM Subject: [WISPA] House committee members ask FCC to reject Frontline http://mrtmag.com/news/house_fcc_frontline_070607/ House committee members ask FCC to reject Frontline Jul 6, 2007 2:19 PM, By Donny Jackson A Republican-dominated group of House Commerce Committee members this week released a letter sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin asking that the Frontline Wireless proposal be dismissed and let the 700 MHz commercial auction proceed with no public-safety, wholesale or open-access obligations. Frontline has proposed that the FCC establish a 10 MHz “E block” in the auction, with the winner of the spectrum being obligated to negotiate with a national public-safety licensee to build a nationwide wireless broadband network using the E block airwaves and 12 MHz of adjacent public-safety frequencies. The Frontline plan also calls for the E block licensee to provide only wholesale service to customers other than public safety and agree to open-access requirements. Signed by 12 Republicans—most notably, ranking committee member Joe Barton (R-Texas)—and four junior Democrats, the letter states that including the latter obligations in commercial spectrum rules would be “inappropriate.” “Suggestions to impose wholesale and so-called open access requirements … are blatant poison pills to discourage competing bids and to lower the price of spectrum,” the letter states. “Business models should be left to the market, not hard-wired into auctions.” While supporting the notion of a public-private partnership on public safety’s 12 MHz of spectrum, the letter cites several potential risks involved with putting public-safety obligations on the E block, because the public-safety requirements would not be solidified for some time. “The odds of crafting precisely the right auction conditions, that create precisely the right model and that result in precisely the right winner, who will then agree to public safety’s requirements, are minimal at best,” the letter states. “We are likely to be left with no bidder, or a winner who will neither meet the needs of public safety nor relinquish the license without a fight.” Frontline Wireless Vice Chairman Reed Hundt this week said Frontline’s proposal would not preclude existing wireless carriers like Verizon Wireless and ATT Mobility—formerly know as Cingular Wireless—from bidding on the E block spectrum. However, Frontline’s updated proposed rules would require the E block licensee to “be limited to providing service to public safety users, entities that provide retail service and products to end users, and providers and operators of critical infrastructure”—a stipulation that carriers with millions of retail consumer customers almost certainly would be willing to follow. With this in mind, the letter asks Martin to reject the Frontline plan. “Let us not mistake this proposal for what it is: yet another attempt to get valuable spectrum on the cheap,” the letter states. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
