Re: [WISPA] Green Field Developments

2007-07-12 Thread rabbtux rabbtux

Don't have anything for you yet, but I'm interested in what others are
doing in this area.  What types of arrangements/payments do others
make/collect from developers for service guarantees or such for their
new developments?

On 7/11/07, D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello,

I was wondering if any of you have ever worked on green field
devlopments. I have been asked by 2 developers to work up some numbers
to provide services to homes that are not yet built.

Thanks!

ryan

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/



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] 4.9 use

2007-07-12 Thread Ralph
This is very interesting and makes me curious, Felix.
Which part of the workforce is using the 4.9? What city services? This
implies something else than Public Safety because you said city services AND
public safety.

Ralph
WISPA full member

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Felix A. Lopez
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 4.9 use


Butch, My WISP team installed a MotoWi4 Motorola Mesh
+ Motorola Canopy system at a municipality/city.  The
system was the 2.4 GHz + 4.9 GHz MotoMesh radio (the
MotoWi4 product line).   The 2.4 GHz is being used for
WiFi city utility metering.   The 4.9 GHz will be
used for mesh networking for mobility along
thoroughfares for workforce.   To use the 4.9 GHZ we
called the FCC and researched what was needed. There
is a piece of paperwork that needs to be completed by
your city Communications Officer or CIO.  So that is
what they did...the Communicatios Officer and CIO
complted the FCC paperwork and officially filed and
got permission from the FCC to use the 4.9 GHz. It
was actually quite easy.  I don't have the paperwork
with me but there is a FCC Technical Engineer
available on the FCC website.   The key point is the
4.9GHZ will be used for city services and public
safety for first responders.

Felix Lopez
Wireless Practioneer

/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/


Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Ray Jean

Carl
We used one from Tessco that has a collar that bolts around the vent on top 
of tank and adjustable legs for leveling.It has been up there 4 years with 
no problems.It was easy to install approx 1hour.

Ray Hill

- Original Message - 
From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts



Carl Shivers wrote:

We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One
tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The
other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the 
top,
no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water 
Tower

mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the
plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution.

I have successfully used magnets on a couple of towers for 2 years now...

I don't completely trust them, so I also run a safety cable around the 
mast
and anchor it to a solid projection on the tower so that if the magnets 
did
turn loose, the mast wouldn't hit the ground, but in two years, and 
through

several thunderstorms and pretty good winds, the magnets haven't shifted
a bit that I can see.

--

John Vogel - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.vogent.net   620-754-3907
Vogel Enterprises, LLC
Information Services Provider serving S.E. Kansas


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/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 
5:44 PM






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] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

2007-07-12 Thread David Hughes
FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators
should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones.

Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal
that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off
by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network
that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would
benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who
want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The
plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their
networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed
services.

This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that
will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this
month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of
the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone.

Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote
innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone
without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing
such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and
reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15
billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles
telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this
opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in
this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much
control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget
makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers.

Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless
market is already vigorously competitive.

No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in
a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and
with fewer choices.

The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and
industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the
spectrum for an open-access network.

Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that
competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and
networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access
requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon
Wireless.

But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless
products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon
Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so
many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because
carriers act as gatekeepers.

I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to
innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies'
death grip on the market.

Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open
networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the
spectrum and build a wireless network. On the company's public policy blog,
Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote Tuesday
that the company was still interested in participating in the auction but
said it's clear that the incumbent carriers have built-in advantages that
will prove difficult to overcome.

Google said it favors openness that allows all services, applications and
devices to work on the wireless network.

Some consumer advocates say the auction rules Martin proposed this week do
not go far enough to promote real competition. In addition to allowing any
device to connect to the network, the FCC should require the auction winner
to wholesale the spectrum to companies that impose no rules on what type of
services and equipment consumers can use, said Art Brodsky of Public
Knowledge, an advocacy group.

Martin seems to be testing the waters, Brodsky said, with draft rules that
seem to favor high-tech companies over the major telecom carriers.

He wants to see the congressional and industry reaction, he said. He's
trying to see what kind of support he'll get.


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: 

[WISPA] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha
If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns or 
should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done that 
way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not working 
- no reverse dns.


--
You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha


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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Jeremy Davis

Carl A jeptha wrote:
If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns 
or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done 
that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not 
working - no reverse dns.


Typically your upstream will handle it or they will forward the request 
to your DNS servers.


Sincerely,

Jeremy Davis


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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Matt Liotta

Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks.

-Matt

Carl A jeptha wrote:
If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns 
or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done 
that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not 
working - no reverse dns.





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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Dennis Burgess

I have several /27s and /28s that I handle their reverse on!  These are on
cable compaines and ATT networks too..

On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks.

-Matt

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns
 or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done
 that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not
 working - no reverse dns.




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/





--
Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant
www.mikrotikconsulting.com
[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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Graham McIntire

I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT.  If you do a whois on
my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward
all the requests on that block to my servers.

Graham

On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP blocks.

-Matt

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns
 or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done
 that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not
 working - no reverse dns.



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/



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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Matt Liotta

My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things.

-Matt

Graham McIntire wrote:

I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT.  If you do a whois on
my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward
all the requests on that block to my servers.

Graham

On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP 
blocks.


-Matt

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns
 or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always done
 that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not
 working - no reverse dns.


 

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/

 

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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Dennis Burgess

I don't konw if it is RFC or not.  Just saying, it can be done!

On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things.

-Matt

Graham McIntire wrote:
 I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT.  If you do a whois on
 my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward
 all the requests on that block to my servers.

 Graham

 On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP
 blocks.

 -Matt

 Carl A jeptha wrote:
  If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse dns
  or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always
done
  that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is not
  working - no reverse dns.
 




 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/




 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/





--
Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant
www.mikrotikconsulting.com
[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] Reverse DNS

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha

They will look into it this afternoon.

You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Dennis Burgess wrote:

I don't konw if it is RFC or not.  Just saying, it can be done!

On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


My fault; I didn't realize RFC 2317 had changed things.

-Matt

Graham McIntire wrote:
 I have a delegated reverse on a /25 from ATT.  If you do a whois on
 my netblock the reverse DNS servers are still ATT's, but they forward
 all the requests on that block to my servers.

 Graham

 On 7/12/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Delegated reverse DNS control cannot work with smaller than /24 IP
 blocks.

 -Matt

 Carl A jeptha wrote:
  If I only have a 16 pubic ip addresses, can I control my reverse 
dns

  or should my upstream be doing that In the past it was always
done
  that way, but now they are try to change and some of my email is 
not

  working - no reverse dns.
 


 



 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/


 



 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/







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] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Hammett
I've heard that welding on a water tower is a bad idea...  messes up some of 
the insides.



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


- Original Message - 
From: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts



We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One
tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The
other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the top,
no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water Tower
mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the
plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution.



Any other ideas would be welcome.


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/




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] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

2007-07-12 Thread Drew Lentz
Hi there! New to the list but wanted to jump in with comments:

This was, IMO, a great hearing. I watched about the first 2 hours of it and
was delighted by the responses of the witnesses. Hearing the chair of the
committee refer to the ATT iPhone contract as being a Hotel California
service where you can signup, but never leave with your iPhone made me
chuckle. But it was Jason Devitt that drove it home for me, paraphrasing
from his prepared testimony, 

Open Access is an unfamiliar term for a very familiar idea. The private
companies who build and maintain our highways don't get to dictate what kind
of car I drive. I don't have to ask Wal-Mart for permission to open a retail
store next door to one of theirs. ConEd and PGE can't limit my choice of
vacuum cleaner, and I don't have to ask Verizon for permission to launch a
web site. However, I have to ask Verizon Wireless for permission to sell a
phone that runs on their network or an application that runs on their
phones.

If you are interested in watching an archived version or reading more of the
witness testimony, it's online @
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.071107.ConsumerProtecti
on.shtml

Have a great day, and I look forward to contributing to this list :)

-drew

Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Hughes
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:15 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network,Say
Lawmakers

FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators
should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones.

Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal
that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off
by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network
that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would
benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who
want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The
plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their
networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed
services.

This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that
will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this
month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of
the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone.

Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote
innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone
without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing
such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and
reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15
billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles
telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this
opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in
this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much
control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget
makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers.

Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless
market is already vigorously competitive.

No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in
a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and
with fewer choices.

The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and
industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the
spectrum for an open-access network.

Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that
competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and
networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access
requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon
Wireless.

But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless
products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon
Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so
many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because
carriers act as gatekeepers.

I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to
innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies'
death grip on the market.

Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open
networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the
spectrum 

[WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line

2007-07-12 Thread Drew Lentz
Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line

New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links for
Municipal and Other Applications

 

July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST

 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm


Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for
broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of
Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model
954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit
system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz
license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight applications,
the new system enables reliable communications links in environments filled
with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. 

With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable,
high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply not
possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing at
ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a
mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable
communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the
command and control systems. 

An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model 954-R
system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile roaming
with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data rate
selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's
design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized
enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in extreme
weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna alignment
tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation and
maintenance. 

With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding our
point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of
applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim
Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now
operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency bands,
as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers can
choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and
environment. 

The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list price
of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now with
U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. 

About Proxim Wireless 

Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and
supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service
providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's
end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT,
WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global
channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal Member
of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim and
its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. 

About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) 

ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and
technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship product,
which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of
inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens of
cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products
assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying and
capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology covered
by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law
enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter technology
has consistently produced arrests and weapons confiscations nationwide and
has helped reduce gunfire and crime rates in cities that deploy it. 

Safe Harbor Statement 

Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical facts
are forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and
assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from the results
anticipated in these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking
statements involve risks and uncertainties that could contribute to such
differences including those relating to difficulties in overcoming the
network installation and operational challenges relating to any specific
customer or geographical area; factors beyond our control such as weather,
geographic, governmental, and interference issues; and difficulties or
delays in supplying products with the features, performance, compliances,
certifications, cost, price, and other characteristics desired by customers.
Further 

Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread J. Vogel
I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one
individual
but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and
false statements being made in response to a suggestion that
magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both
amazing
and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a
more professional atmosphere on this list.

Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a
commercially available
professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand
100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a
mounting
system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a
professionally
engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger,
more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the
mounting
to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose
would
depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm.

It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted
on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off
anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have
attached
a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever
be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or
handhold?
Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper
use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni
antennas consisting
of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The
point is
that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting
something
on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support
point
is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who
propose
such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have
actually mounted equipment on towers.

As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I
would
assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that
non-penetrating
roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not
specifically
engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which
might
under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be
outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or,
perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass
muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could
imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail.

I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would not
use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and
have
in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that
I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to
mitigate
the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in a
way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are
scared
by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is
disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and
have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at hand
simply because of those irrational fears.

I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using
welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers
being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not
something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well
engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment
that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or
tornado
force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to
withstand +500mph wind loads? Should all magnets be outlawed? (I see
lots of magnetically mounted omni antennas on vehicles traveling at high
speed down public roadways, can you imagine that???) I bet some of those
responding negatively to magnetic mounts even have magnets holding stuff
on their refrigerators, one of the highest use and traffic areas in the
typical
home.

I can show numerous examples of solutions designed and built by
amateurs which in the final analysis are safer and better  solutions than
commercially available, professionally designed solutions to the same
problem, but  the amateur solutions do not have the blessing of the
designed by professionals label. Does that make them inappropriate? In
the views of some people, sadly, the answer is yes.

All of that being said, whenever one is considering their options for
mounting
equipment on a tower, safety should be a top priority (and I would add
should
take precedence over having a designed by professionals label) and one
should never mount equipment in a fashion which is likely to cause
serious injury
or death to innocent members of the 

Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread JohnnyO
I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not want to 
spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional welder... Be 
done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would never fly with our 
approval board on our water tower systems.


JohnnyO

ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts. they 
are lazy / cheap :) LOL
- Original Message - 
From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts



I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one
individual
but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and
false statements being made in response to a suggestion that
magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both
amazing
and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a
more professional atmosphere on this list.

Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a
commercially available
professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand
100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a
mounting
system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a
professionally
engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger,
more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the
mounting
to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose
would
depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm.

It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be mounted
on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a tie-off
anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have
attached
a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever
be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or
handhold?
Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper
use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni
antennas consisting
of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The
point is
that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting
something
on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support
point
is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who
propose
such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have
actually mounted equipment on towers.

As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I
would
assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that
non-penetrating
roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not
specifically
engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which
might
under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be
outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. 
Or,

perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass
muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them 
could

imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail.

I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I would 
not

use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and
have
in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so that
I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to
mitigate
the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing things in 
a

way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are
scared
by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is
disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and
have limited the options available to those less suited for the job at 
hand

simply because of those irrational fears.

I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using
welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to towers
being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not
something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well
engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment
that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or
tornado
force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to
withstand +500mph wind loads? Should all magnets be outlawed? (I see
lots of magnetically mounted omni antennas on vehicles traveling at high
speed down public roadways, can you imagine that???) I bet some of those
responding negatively to magnetic mounts even have magnets holding stuff
on their refrigerators, one of the highest use and traffic areas in the
typical
home.

I can show numerous examples of solutions designed and built by
amateurs which in the final analysis are safer and better  solutions than
commercially available, 

Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread J. Vogel
Not to argue with you JohnnyO,  :) but the last time I hired
professionals (just recently
in fact) to do something I could well have done myself, it was because I
was lazy
and cheap. I didn't have the time, nor the inclination to do something
myself, so I
hired a professional crew to do it for me. And I do mean professional.
A highly
experienced, regionally known, and well respected in the industry, firm.
I was there
to watch the work being done, and I can tell you that had safety,
efficiency, and
getting the job done according to all relevant best current practices
been the
criteria, the amateur crew I would have hired had I wanted to spend the time
money and energy to do it myself would have been a far better choice.

I may be lazy and cheap, but that is really irrelevant to the thread at
hand.

John

JohnnyO wrote:

 I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not
 want to spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional
 welder... Be done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would
 never fly with our approval board on our water tower systems.

 JohnnyO

 ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts.
 they are lazy / cheap :) LOL
 - Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts


 I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one
 individual
 but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and
 false statements being made in response to a suggestion that
 magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both
 amazing
 and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a
 more professional atmosphere on this list.

 Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a
 commercially available
 professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand
 100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a
 mounting
 system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a
 professionally
 engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger,
 more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the
 mounting
 to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose
 would
 depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm.

 It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be
 mounted
 on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a
 tie-off
 anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have
 attached
 a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would
 ever
 be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or
 handhold?
 Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand
 improper
 use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni
 antennas consisting
 of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The
 point is
 that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting
 something
 on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support
 point
 is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who
 propose
 such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they
 have
 actually mounted equipment on towers.

 As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I
 would
 assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that
 non-penetrating
 roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not
 specifically
 engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which
 might
 under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall
 would be
 outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do
 so. Or,
 perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass
 muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at
 them could
 imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail.

 I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I
 would not
 use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and
 have
 in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so
 that
 I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to
 mitigate
 the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing
 things in a
 way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are
 scared
 by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is
 disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and
 have limited the options available to those less suited for the job
 at hand
 simply because of those irrational fears.

 I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using
 welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to
 towers
 being 

Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Scott Reed
Or by people who have to deal with government people that are so 
overwhelmed by the Homeland Security stuff that they want absolutely 
nothing done that could even remotely cause an issue with the water 
supply.   I do not personally have any water tower mounted equipment, 
partly because of this paranoia with making changes to the tower.  I am 
fairly certain that the only way I would have gotten permission to go on 
the top of the tank would have been to use magnetic mounts.


JohnnyO wrote:
I think magnetic mounts are used by lazy / cheap people who do not 
want to spend the $$ nor the time to do it right. Get a professional 
welder... Be done with it, sleep at night. A magnetic mount would 
never fly with our approval board on our water tower systems.


JohnnyO

ps - I have a few friends on this list that use magnetic mounts. 
they are lazy / cheap :) LOL

- Original Message - From: J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts



I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one
individual
but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and
false statements being made in response to a suggestion that
magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both
amazing
and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a
more professional atmosphere on this list.

Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a
commercially available
professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand
100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a
mounting
system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a
professionally
engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger,
more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the
mounting
to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose
would
depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm.

It has been suggested in another post that nothing should ever be 
mounted
on a tower that some idiot might at some point decided to use as a 
tie-off

anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have
attached
a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would 
ever

be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or
handhold?
Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand 
improper

use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni
antennas consisting
of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? The
point is
that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting
something
on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support
point
is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who
propose
such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they 
have

actually mounted equipment on towers.

As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I
would
assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that
non-penetrating
roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not
specifically
engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which
might
under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall 
would be
outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do 
so. Or,

perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass
muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at 
them could

imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail.

I have seen numerous professionally engineered solutions which I 
would not

use in a given circumstance because of the likelihood of it failing, and
have
in several instances used a solution designed by an amateur (me) so 
that

I could rest easier at night, knowing that I have done what I could to
mitigate
the actual risk to life and property. Sometimes that means doing 
things in a

way that is out of the norm, which scares some people. That they are
scared
by that which is not normal without a rational basis for their fear is
disheartening. Many rules and regulations have been foisted upon us and
have limited the options available to those less suited for the job 
at hand

simply because of those irrational fears.

I have seen mounts which were professionally mounted to towers using
welded studs (either welded to existing towers or in some cases to 
towers

being constructed) using small diameter bolts which were definitely not
something that I would trust my life to, and other mounts that were well
engineered and would likely withstand likely wind loads on the equipment
that they were supporting, yet which will probably fail in hurricane or
tornado
force winds. Are these in-appropriate? should we engineer everything to
withstand +500mph wind loads? 

RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-MultipointProduct Line

2007-07-12 Thread Gino Villarini
$1200 for the cpe  yikes...what are they smoking?  It just the mp.11
board with a ubiquity 900 card..

Take a peak here:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i
d=793933native_or_pdf=pdf



Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Drew Lentz
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to
Point-to-MultipointProduct Line

Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line

New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links
for
Municipal and Other Applications

 

July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST

 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm


Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for
broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of
Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model
954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit
system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz
license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight
applications,
the new system enables reliable communications links in environments
filled
with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. 

With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable,
high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply
not
possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing
at
ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a
mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable
communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the
command and control systems. 

An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model
954-R
system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile
roaming
with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data
rate
selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's
design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized
enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in
extreme
weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna
alignment
tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation
and
maintenance. 

With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding
our
point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of
applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim
Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now
operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency
bands,
as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers
can
choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and
environment. 

The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list
price
of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now
with
U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. 

About Proxim Wireless 

Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam,
Inc.
(NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and
supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service
providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's
end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT,
WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global
channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal
Member
of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim
and
its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. 

About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) 

ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and
technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship
product,
which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of
inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens
of
cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products
assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying
and
capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology
covered
by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law
enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter
technology
has consistently produced arrests and weapons confiscations nationwide
and
has helped reduce gunfire and crime rates in cities that deploy it. 

Safe Harbor Statement 

Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical
facts
are forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and
assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from the results

RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support toPoint-to-MultipointProduct Line

2007-07-12 Thread Drew Lentz
Haha. Gotta love it.
Link to Ubiquiti board used:
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/sr9datasheet.pdf


Drew Lentz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support
toPoint-to-MultipointProduct Line

$1200 for the cpe  yikes...what are they smoking?  It just the mp.11
board with a ubiquity 900 card..

Take a peak here:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i
d=793933native_or_pdf=pdf



Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Drew Lentz
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to
Point-to-MultipointProduct Line

Proxim Wireless Adds 900 MHz Support to Point-to-Multipoint Product Line

New Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R Enables Broadband, Non-Line-of-Sight Links
for
Municipal and Other Applications

 

July 12, 2007: 09:00 AM EST

 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0277031.htm


Proxim Wireless Corporation, a leader in core-to-client solutions for
broadband municipal wireless networks and wholly owned subsidiary of
Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRBM), today announced the Tsunami MP.11 Model
954-R, an outdoor point-to-multipoint base station and subscriber unit
system that supports high-speed wireless connections in the 900 MHz
license-exempt frequency band. Designed for non-line-of-sight
applications,
the new system enables reliable communications links in environments
filled
with buildings, dense foliage and other obstructions. 

With Proxim's new Tsunami MP.11 Model 954-R, we can create reliable,
high-speed wireless links in environments where line-of-sight is simply
not
possible, said Gregg Rowland, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing
at
ShotSpotter, Inc. ShotSpotter's wireless Gunshot Location System is a
mission critical tool for public safety and the military, so reliable
communications to and from our sensors is essential to dispatch or the
command and control systems. 

An addition to Proxim's award-winning Tsunami MP.11 family, the Model
954-R
system provides capabilities of WiMAX, including WiMAX QoS, mobile
roaming
with fast handoff speeds up to 200 km/per hour (120 mph), dynamic data
rate
selection (DDRS) and advanced security with AES encryption. The system's
design enables flexible and easy deployment. Housed in ruggedized
enclosures, the base station and subscriber units can be deployed in
extreme
weather conditions with a variety of external antennas. An antenna
alignment
tool and secure local and remote management ensure quick installation
and
maintenance. 

With the introduction of these products, Proxim Wireless is expanding
our
point-to-multipoint product line to support an even wider range of
applications, said Bert Williams, Vice President of Marketing at Proxim
Wireless. Our Tsunami product line with ProximVisionT management now
operates in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz license-exempt frequency
bands,
as well as the 3.5 GHz and 4.9 GHz licensed bands, so that our customers
can
choose the spectrum that best supports their particular applications and
environment. 

The Tsunami MP.11 954-R base station is available now at a U.S. list
price
of $2,299; Tsunami MP.11 954-R subscriber units are also available now
with
U.S. list prices starting at $1,199. 

About Proxim Wireless 

Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Terabeam,
Inc.
(NASDAQ: TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and
supplying scalable broadband wireless networking systems for service
providers, municipalities, governments, and enterprises. The company's
end-to-end wireless products -- including Wi-FiR mesh, WiMAX, MeshMAXT,
WLAN, and wireless backhaul -- are available through an extensive global
channel network, backed by world-class support. Proxim is a Principal
Member
of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified. Information about Proxim
and
its products and support can be found at http://www.proxim.com. 

About ShotSpotter, Inc. (www.shotspotter.com) 

ShotSpotter, Inc., the leading developer of gunshot location systems and
technology, is based in Mountain View, CA. ShotSpotter's flagship
product,
which detects gunfire across large urban areas using a small number of
inexpensive and easy-to-deploy sensors, currently protects the citizens
of
cities nationwide, from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, DC. Its products
assisted the FBI and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office in identifying
and
capturing the Columbus, Ohio highway sniper suspect. With technology
covered
by numerous patents, the company also offers products to the law
enforcement, homeland security and military markets. ShotSpotter
technology

[WISPA] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I 
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a 
proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24


--
You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha


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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Chadd Thompson
Here you go.

OrgName:Ontario Hydro - Telecom
OrgID:  OHYD
Address:483 Bay Street, 8th floor
NetRange:   142.45.0.0 - 142.50.255.255
CIDR:   142.45.0.0/16, 142.46.0.0/15, 142.48.0.0/15, 142.50.0.0/16
NetName:ONTARIO-HYDRO
NetHandle:  NET-142-45-0-0-1
Parent: NET-142-0-0-0-0
NetType:Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.HYDROONETELECOM.COM
NameServer: NS2.HYDROONETELECOM.COM
Comment:
RegDate:1990-03-26
Updated:2002-09-25

RTechHandle: SH497-ARIN
RTechName:   HSU, Sheng
RTechPhone:  +1-416-240-6688
RTechEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-07-11 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Behalf Of Carl A jeptha
 Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Reverse lookup
 
 
 can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I 
 need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a 
 proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24
 
 -- 
 You have a Good Day now,
 
 
 Carl A Jeptha
 http://www.airnet.ca
 Office Phone: 905 349-2084
 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
 skype cajeptha
 
 --
 --
 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/
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
 Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date: 
 7/11/2007 9:57 PM
 

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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha
Our upstream has finally plug in our server names to their dns servers 
and now we are working again


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Carl A jeptha wrote:
can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I 
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create 
a proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a 
/24




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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread David E. Smith
Carl A jeptha wrote:
 can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
 need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a
 proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24

I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)

David Smith
MVN.net

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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Scott Reed

I have BIND doing /27 networks as well as larger.
Here is what www.dnsstuff.com found:

Location: Canada [City: Toronto, Ontario]

*Preparation*:
The  reverse DNS entry for an IP is found by reversing the IP, adding it to 
in-addr.arpa, and looking up the PTR record.
So, the reverse DNS entry for 142.46.11.217 is found by looking up the PTR 
record for
217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa.
All DNS requests start by asking the root servers, and they let us know what to 
do next.
See How Reverse DNS Lookups Work http://member.dnsstuff.com/info/REVDNS.php 
for more information.

*How I am searching*:
Asking d.root-servers.net for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record:  
  d.root-servers.net says to go to indigo.arin.net. (zone: 142.in-addr.arpa.)
Asking indigo.arin.net. for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record:  
  indigo.arin.net [192.31.80.32] says to go to NS2.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. (zone: 46.142.in-addr.arpa.)

Asking NS2.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. for 217.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa PTR record:  Got 
CNAME referral to 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. at server 
ns2.cobourgnetworks.com. (zone 192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa.) [from 
142.46.128.130]
Asking h.root-servers.net for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record:  
  h.root-servers.net [128.63.2.53] says to go to chia.arin.net. (zone: 142.in-addr.arpa.)
Asking chia.arin.net. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record:  
  chia.arin.net [192.5.6.32] says to go to NS1.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. (zone: 46.142.in-addr.arpa.)
Asking NS1.HYDROONETELECOM.COM. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR record:  
  ns1.hydroonetelecom.com [142.46.1.130] says to go to ns1.cobourgnetworks.com. (zone: 192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa.)

Asking ns1.cobourgnetworks.com. for 217.192-255.11.46.142.in-addr.arpa. PTR 
record:  Reports that no PTR records exist [from 142.46.11.205].

*Answer*:
*No PTR records exist for 142.46.11.217.* [Neg TTL=3600 seconds]



David E. Smith wrote:

Carl A jeptha wrote:
  

can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a
proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24



I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)

David Smith
MVN.net

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.

  


--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net


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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Graham McIntire

My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone: 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa

In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
   type master;
   file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};

Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.

Graham

On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
 need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to create a
 proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for a /24

I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)

David Smith
MVN.net

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/



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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread David E. Smith
Graham McIntire wrote:
 My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone:
 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa

Oooh, neat, I didn't know BIND could do that. Are you using BIND 8 or
BIND 9? (Or some other DNS software entirely?)

David Smith
MVN.net

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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Graham McIntire

I'm running BIND 9 on all my servers.  I think classless reverse
delegation was supported in earlier versions, although I can't say
I've tried.  RFC 2317 has been around for a while:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2317.html

I didn't know it was possible either until I got the /25 delegated to
me and I had to figure out what zone it was coming to me as.

Graham

On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Graham McIntire wrote:
 My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone:
 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa

Oooh, neat, I didn't know BIND could do that. Are you using BIND 8 or
BIND 9? (Or some other DNS software entirely?)

David Smith
MVN.net

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/



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] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha

Ok will try this. thanks. will report back.

You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Graham McIntyre wrote:
My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone: 
128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa


In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
   type master;
   file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};

Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.

Graham

On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
 need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to 
create a
 proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for 
a /24


I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)

David Smith
MVN.net
 

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/

 

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] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Clint Ricker

John Vogel,
Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional
discussion.  There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or
uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto
towers.   If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists
have no purpose.

You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely trust
them.  I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :).  Call it
unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using
mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy
chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air.

As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some
statement of I don't completely trust it would get the same response from
me.  I don't like the idea of people mounting big heavy objects above my
head using methods they themselves have some doubt about.

Best practices does not necessarily entail commercially available solutions
or degreed engineering solutions.  Best practices are simply that--the
optimal way(s) of achieving a particular task.  I don't completely trust
methods are a long-ways off from that.

My point is not to increase regulation and such--quite the opposite.  My
point is that using practices that aren't completely trusted will, in the
end, lead to regulation.  As an industry, the wireless industry will have to
learn to regulate itself to a moderate degree or it will be regulated to a
heavy degree.  There's a lot that goes by everyone on that is not
necessarily as well done as it could be--which is understandable--business
may require concessions to some degree.  Nevertheless, better practices
should be used in places that are highly visible or potentially impact the
public community.

Does it need to involve a degreed engineer?  Of course not.  But,
considering that even you had your doubts, 200 feet above everyone in plain
sight of an entire town is a heck-of a place for a we'll see approach
which was the feeling I got from your original postings.

I don't think that engineering needs to take into accounts stupid misuse (ie
antennas being used as footholds).  Still, I don't see how a mounting
solution that you were almost surprised that there hadn't been slippage on a
year later is a good thing.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

ps.  I'm not against magnets in general.  Magnets on my fridge?  Guilty as
charged :)

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] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread J. Vogel
Clint,

Thank you for the civil reply.

You are still making assumptions which are in fact un-founded.
Nowhere in my post did I state the weights and dimensions of what
I have secured to towers using magnets, the number and size of magnets,
their placement on the towers, proximity to areas where there might
be climbers attempting find anchor points, whether they were on vertical
or horizontal planes of the tower, the leverage which might have been
either in favor of or against the magnets due to stresses which might
be placed on the mount by winds or objects striking the antennas/masts,
the methods used to tie the magnets together, wind load factor of
attached equipment, or really any other technical details which would
have given you or anybody else a possible basis for determining whether
or not the methods used were likely to be sufficient under all forseeable
circumstances, or even possible catastophic conditions. Yet you still
referred to amateurs, your liklihood of dis-allowing any such mounts
were you in the decision making role or in authority position, and other
references that indicated that you believe that anybody that would
use magnetic mounts in any circumstance (at 200 feet in the air) is
doing it wrong. I believe you also referred to lack of understanding
of magnet load carrying capacity and other references to the lack of
ability of people (presumably including me) who might choose to use
magnets to mount an antenna.

I did say that I did not completely trust the mount, and immediately
following that statement, stated that I had secured the mount/mast to
the tower using a safety cable. I did not express surprise that the magnets
had not moved, just stated that I could not detect any movement. I
actually attached the safety cable because I am probably more cautious
than most. I also don't completely trust most other mounting systems,
and whenever possible and/or practical, take steps to add a redundant
safety feature such as a safety cable, supporting braces, multiple mount
points, etc... and I do this on towers that are in rural locations with no
structures/and only authorized personnell being within 1/2 mile of the
towers. (and only on rare occasions at that.)There is almost zero
possibility
of anybody or any thing being damaged or hurt should the mounts
 fail and the safety cable failing simultaneously. And by almost zero
I mean approaching infinitesimally small odds that someone will get hurt.
But then again, I am not a statistician either. :)

My negative reaction to your post and those made by others was prompted
by the unequivocal statements that magnet mounts are always a bad idea. I
would propose that a properly designed and built mounting system secured
by the proper quantity/size/power magnets strategically placed can be safer
than many of the mounting systems I see in use that would not have elicited
such a response had the suggestion been to use them, including some mounts
I have seen that were bolted to the tower using capacitive stud welding. In
fact, I believe that magnets could be used successfully to secure a mounting
system that I WOULD trust my life to, and I take life very seriously. :)

The original poster asked for alternative ideas for mounting some sector
antennas to a tower. He did not as I recall specify the size or weight
of those
antennas. They likely are not very big or heavy if he is in the WISP
industry.
Most likely they weigh only a couple of pounds, with minimal wind loading
characteristics. If that is the case, it might be entirely possible to
design a
mounting system that would hold them, with the mounting system exceeding
the specifications of the antenna brackets themselves in terms of holding
capacity and projected reliability. I did not propose to him the design
of such
a system, nor would I. Only a suggestion that such things can and are being
done successfully, giving him another option to research. It is OK for you
and others to disagree, but please, do so in a reasoned and civil manner,
taking all care necessary to avoid giving the impression that you believe
those with whom you are disagreeing are idiots, fools, or worse... unless
of course they actually are. :)

John

Clint Ricker wrote:

 John Vogel,
 Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional
 discussion.  There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or
 uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto
 towers.   If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists
 have no purpose.

 You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely
 trust
 them.  I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :).  Call it
 unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using
 mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big,
 heavy
 chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air.

 As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some
 statement of I 

Re: [WISPA] Reverse lookup

2007-07-12 Thread Carl A jeptha
I have done as you directed and it is working, I love my freedom, if I 
want to change a server I don't have to fill in the forms in triplicate 
and wait three for the instruction to executed wrong. :-D


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Graham McIntire wrote:
My /25 is delegated to me from ATT as the zone: 
128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa


In my named.conf I have:
zone 128/25.xx.xx.12.in-addr.arpa {
   type master;
   file master/29.xx.12.in-addr.arpa;
};

Take note the CIDR and last octet of my network are reversed, my
netblock is 12.xx.xx.128/25.

Graham

On 7/12/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Carl A jeptha wrote:
 can someone do a reverse look up on the following # 142.46.11.217. I
 need to know who is answering for it. Also need to know how to 
create a
 proper revers name for 16 ip addresses in bind all I'm is info for 
a /24


I don't think BIND can handle smaller allocations. You may have to
pretend to be authoritative for the whole /24. (Your upstream will,
presumably, only route requests for your /28 to you, so the only folks
who would ever know the difference are you, and any customers of yours
who do reverse lookups on the rest of that /24, which probably doesn't
happen too often.)

David Smith
MVN.net
 

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/

 

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] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

2007-07-12 Thread Michael Erskine
Gawd, it is this kind of thing that makes me wish I was a Democrat.  Why 
can't we all find the

middle?

-m-

David Hughes wrote:

FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators
should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones.

Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal
that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off
by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an open network
that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would
benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who
want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The
plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their
networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed
services.

This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that
will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this
month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of
the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone.

Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote
innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone
without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing
such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and
reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15
billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles
telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to seize this
opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in
this auction. He added that wireless carriers are exerting far too much
control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget
makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers.

Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless
market is already vigorously competitive.

No matter how you slice it, he said, the proposal smothers investment in
a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and
with fewer choices.

The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and
industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the
spectrum for an open-access network.

Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that
competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and
networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access
requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon
Wireless.

But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless
products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon
Wireless and ATamp;T bring new products to market, he said, there are so
many other products and services not getting in front of consumers because
carriers act as gatekeepers.

I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to
innovate, he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies'
death grip on the market.

Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open
networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the
spectrum and build a wireless network. On the company's public policy blog,
Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote Tuesday
that the company was still interested in participating in the auction but
said it's clear that the incumbent carriers have built-in advantages that
will prove difficult to overcome.

Google said it favors openness that allows all services, applications and
devices to work on the wireless network.

Some consumer advocates say the auction rules Martin proposed this week do
not go far enough to promote real competition. In addition to allowing any
device to connect to the network, the FCC should require the auction winner
to wholesale the spectrum to companies that impose no rules on what type of
services and equipment consumers can use, said Art Brodsky of Public
Knowledge, an advocacy group.

Martin seems to be testing the waters, Brodsky said, with draft rules that
seem to favor high-tech companies over the major telecom carriers.

He wants to see the congressional and industry reaction, he said. He's
trying to see what kind of support he'll get.


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 

RE: [SPAM] RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
http://www.metal-cable.com/

Look at the MagneMount. No idea what is costs, but it should work for you.

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 Mark McElvy
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [SPAM] RE: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Importance: Low

I would not recommend welding on the tank portion of the water tower. It
is my understanding they are coated and will be damaged by the heat. I
have equipment on two different water towers and that was the info given
on both. Fortunately I had other mounting solutions.

There was a discussion a while back about this and a magnetic mount was
suggested.

Mark McElvy


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carl Shivers
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:37 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One
tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The
other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the
top,
no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water
Tower
mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the
plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution. 

 

Any other ideas would be welcome.



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/


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/



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] New WISPA Member - Ted Olson of OACYS Technology

2007-07-12 Thread John Scrivner
Please join me in welcoming Ted Olson of OACYS Technology as WISPA's 
newest Principal Member. Here is a little about Ted and his company:



OACYS (pronounced as in oasis) turned 25 this year, I founded it in 
1982 after many years as a military and commercial helicopter pilot. 
There's no connection, except for maybe an odd sense of adventure and a 
certain lack of good sense. We worked from CP/M to DOS and Windows and 
networks and software development, then in 1995 bought some bandwidth 
and a case of modems and became an ISP, the first in our semi-rural 
community of about 30K then (now 50K).


In the late 90s we tangled with PacBell over the privilege of reselling 
their DSL. We're a charter member of CISPA and spent quite a bit of 
money on that battle, until I got fed up and decided that anything 
further in that direction was going to be a very bumpy road that would 
eventually turn into a dead-end.


We're pretty independent sorts so we took a deep breath, white-boarded a 
new game plan, and turned exclusively to wireless. Never looked back. 
Karlnet stuff first, now mostly Trango in all the usual unlicensed bands.


I was chairman of CISPA's first wireless committee, but got way too busy 
with our own business to have enough time to do that justice so I passed 
the baton. We're still members, but with only a few (and far between) 
wireless exceptions that group is still fighting the DSL battle so we 
don't really participate any more. I just posted a reference to WISPA in 
reply to a couple of enquiries on their list about 700 MHz, maybe you'll 
pick up another new member or two.


We cover around 2,500 square miles of mostly rural area at the base of 
the Sierra Nevadas, and also up into several small foothill and mountain 
valleys that may never be served by DSL or cable. Wouldn't matter to us 
anyway, we own those markets now and our service is so good we'd be very 
hard to unseat.


We have a dozen employees averaging close to ten years each, and around 
2000 subs (60-40% residential and business). Our only wireless 
competition is Clearwire, but they're not affecting our business (they 
may be helping) and our growth is steady.


Our CLEC application is now going through the approval process at CPUC. 
We've started selling VoIP (Asterisk box) and now need the advantages of 
a CLEC, previously it wasn't worth the cost.


We've been aware of WISPA for a long time, but it was a recent article 
about CALEA that got us thinking we should probably join. I've been 
lurking in your mail list for a while, just to see what's going on ... 
we might be interested in supporting your 700 MHz efforts. We've of 
course been filing 477s for several years.


Unfortunately for us there are apparently enough small cities elsewhere 
in our county to disqualify our CMA (150) as being rural. The extra 20% 
would have been nice but it's not really a deterrent, providing I can 
get some idea of what a realistic bid might be from our perspective. It 
looks like the average award in Auction 66 went for around $12 million, 
which would be WAY out of our reach.


I'd like to know more about your previous experience with FCC auctions. 
That alone makes it worthwhile to join and help support your committee 
and lobbying efforts, is that still open at $1000? Our time is limited 
(just like yours), but we'll help as much as we can.

Cheers,
-Ted
 Note to Ted and others from Scriv

I have extended the $1000 to join the 700 MHz Committee for a bit 
longer. I am guessing this deal will go away for goos in a couple of 
weeks though. If you are on the fence for getting into the 70 MHz 
efforts hen please join now by sending your check for $1000 to:


WISPA
Attn: 700 MHz Committee
PO Box 1582
Mt. Vernon, IL. 62864

We appreciate your WISPA support whether you have an interest in 700 MHz 
or not. That goes for all of you out there who support WISPA. A big 
thank you to all. Back to you Ted.Scriv



Ted Olson
President and CEO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

OACYS Technology
767 North Porter Road
Porterville, CA 93257
559.781.4123

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] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Bob Moldashel

Comments In line



J. Vogel wrote:

I don't intend to ruffle any feathers, nor do I direct this at any one
individual
but, the number of assumptions made and the knee-jerk reactions and
false statements being made in response to a suggestion that
magnetic mounts can be successfully used in some circumstances is both
amazing
and somewhat disappointing. I would have hoped that we could have a
more professional atmosphere on this list.
  


Sorry to disappoint you. My reaction to the statement was not an 
assumption nor a knee jerk reaction. This subject was discussed 
in-depth in the past and there have been similar responses. While the 
idea may seem like a good one it is not a safe practice.



Best practices if it in this case is taken to mean to use a
commercially available
professionally engineered mount which has been engineered to withstand
100 mph wind loads (to use an arbitrary example) instead of using a
mounting
system which will withstand much more than that, albeit not a
professionally
engineered solution is just wrong. I would rather go with the stronger,
more stable solution rather than compromise on the integrity of the
mounting
to attain the engineer's label. Whether that is best or not I suppose
would
depend upon whether your goal was safety or following the norm.
  


I believe the intention was to promote safe and responsible mounting 
of equipment. Professional was never the issue.




It has been suggested in another post 

Yes..Mine..


that nothing should ever be mounted
on a tower that some idiot 


Why is the person an idiot?


might at some point decided to use as a tie-off
anchor point. That is a good idea in practice, but how many of us have
attached
a lightweight yagi antenna to a tower leg, assuming that nobody would ever
be foolish enough to use it to tie off to, or even use as a foothold or
handhold?
  


Comon'I'm not talking about tying off to a yagi.  Give me some 
credit hereWe are talking about mounting structures..



Are we supposed to only use yagi antennas engineered to withstand improper
use in case some idiot decides to tie off to one? What about omni
antennas consisting
of a thin metal rod, possibly encased in a small fiberglass tube? 


Being ridiculous here..  No one in the steel or tower industry would 
tie off to an actual antenna.



The
point is
that while safety should be a top priority, the goal of never mounting
something
on a tower that could at some point be mis-used as an anchor or support
point
is an unrealistic goal, which I would go so far as to say that those who
propose
such a goal have not been able to meet themselves, assuming that they have
actually mounted equipment on towers.
  


1.  Not true. The number one issue when working and mounting at heights 
must be safety. Again, not cost, but safety. Mounting all equipment so 
it will not come down under any circumstances. Routing cabling on towers 
and water tanks so that they will not produce safety issues such as 
climbing obstructions and/or tripping hazards. Grounding equipment and 
following NEC/EIA requirements when routing power up a tower or tank. I 
do not feel that it is unrealistic to expect a mounting structure to be 
properly mounted. Add to that an inexperienced climber and an antenna 
mount with magnets that could easily slide across the surface of the 
tank and you have an extremely unsafe condition. There are several 
people on this list that were involved in Hurricaine Katrina relief. Ask 
them how many cellular antennas they saw hanging from their cabling or 
damaged mounts after the storm. It is my understanding that there were 
not any where the structure was still standing. And where towers had 
collapsed, the cell mounts were still attached to the downed towers.


2. I propose such a goal because both myself and my guys (as well as 
several thousand other tower/steel workers) work on these structures 
every day. It would probably be safe to say that I have more mounting 
experience on water tanks than anyone else on this list. Not 
bragging...just expressing my experience. And I did not get this 
experience in the last year or two. It is more like 20+ years.






As far as mounting heavy stuff which might fall off and hurt someone, I
would
assume that the reaction(s) in this thread would indicate that
non-penetrating
roof mounts, chimmney mount brackets, clamping to roof vents not
specifically
engineered to withstand such use, and all other forms of mounting which
might
under some conditions fail and allow the heavy objects to fall would be
outlawed in your town were you given the regulatory authority to do so. Or,
perhaps because they were designed by professionals they would pass
muster in your book in spite of the fact that any fool looking at them could
imagine a likely scenario in which they would fail.
  


I am curious why you keep going back to this designed by professionals 
statement? 

Non-Pen mounts are designed to hold a certain amount of