Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years
back the following solution that had worked for him in such
situations:
1. Go to the offending provider
2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away
3. After which point, you will have nothing be
At 12:13 AM 9/13/2007, Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
The biggest problem I see when looking at mesh is having access to
all those locations... people's homes, light poles, telephone poles,
whatever. You now have to install UPS systems, rebooters, have the
equipment some-what secure, etc.
Bingo,
Hi,
The biggest problem I see when looking at mesh is having access to all
those locations... people's homes, light poles, telephone poles,
whatever. You now have to install UPS systems, rebooters, have the
equipment some-what secure, etc.
Just the "few" repeaters we have at people's homes (
At 08:49 PM 9/12/2007, Mac Dearman wrote:
We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy!
Wrong!! See www.bluebirdwireless.com... NW is now polluted
thanks to motos sales team infecting our 911 center and recruiting
their employees to quit and join the priva
At 06:11 PM 9/12/2007, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
From the conversations I've had with people trying to use, or just
around, mesh gear, it doesn't usually work very well once the
network starts to come alive. The old hub and spoke method works best.
But the entire Internet is a
At 10:44 AM 9/12/2007, D. Ryan Spott wrote:
and like a typical dot-com
they spent and expanded far faster than they should have 'cause hey, there's
a second round coming and when they went looking for that second round,
the large investor played their strategy and said no second round for you
".I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed..."
Mac,
That will happen when the 'cow jumps the moon'.
Don't know if you all know the story of how Moto Canopy was developed ?
It was developed for the military to begin with ...you take it from
thereevery thing that you al
At 06:35 PM 9/12/2007, Gino Villarini wrote:
Using dif radios for wifi and backhaul isn't mesh any more? How so?
I was under the impression that "mesh" was the ability of the equipment
to form a interconnection between the nodes with alternative paths to
the Internet feed
I hate to be a
Hello Allen,
Good to see you back and doing well. Curious to hear your take on the
MobilePro saga. On or off list is good with me.
The Friends
Quite a few people have asked me (A) what have I
been doing lately? And (B) please tell me the
MobilePro saga. It means a lot to me that some
Any here use the BOSS software from Intrameta to manage their customer /
radio / other data? We are evaluating them and would appreciate
experience from the field.
Thank you,
Zak Wolfinger
IT Director
CyberLink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 Ext. 4357
Fax: 888-293-3995
---
Can-o-pee. (thanks Bill)
I was given a Canopy 2.4 GHz starter kit... sold it. ;-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
I disagree totally :) with all respect!
I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built
something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial
that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy
didn't build some pretty good gear -
Using dif radios for wifi and backhaul isn't mesh any more? How so?
I was under the impression that "mesh" was the ability of the equipment
to form a interconnection between the nodes with alternative paths to
the Internet feed
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband C
Hi Allen,
From the conversations I've had with people trying to use, or just around,
mesh gear, it doesn't usually work very well once the network starts to come
alive. The old hub and spoke method works best.
Some of the new "mesh" gear uses different channels for broadcast vs.
backhaul.
I believe that if someone wilfully interferes with your business you would have
a case. Perfect example would be if your competition operated on the same non
overlapping channell when other clear channels are available and you notified
them that they were interfering with your system.
Your cano
I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going
against you in this.
1. A free market economy.
2. License Free spectrum.
You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can
if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door
The relation to the McDonalds question would be if they built their store in
front of your door, preventing you from getting customers.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "David Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA
If you are a lawyer, or you can cite specific case law or examples. (URL is
required) then continue this thread.
If not.. Don't! :)
ryan (usually a great producer of list noise, but not today!)
** Join us at the W
Jack,
I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the
interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you
have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and
creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in
the
Isn't that only to licensed users?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Ma
Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is
using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved.
or any unlicensed frequency
Matt Liotta wrote:
No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a
jury that a company is not complying with
Jack:
If you can reasonably allege that what's going on IS in fact malicious
interference, that IS actionable by the FCC. Even if the spectrum in
question is license-exempt spectrum, malicious interference is
specifically prohibited.
Thanks,
Steve
On 9/12/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
There is some "theoretical" problems; I've not seen it, though, and
have had to announce /24's on a different provider for remote pops in
the past.
On 9/12/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess that's a good point. I may be able to get it, but will it be
> routable?
>
>
> -
Your options for recourse are going to depend largely upon the state in
which you operate. However, most states are now recognizing either in
common law or via statute some of the following:
Tortious Interference with Business Relations
Tortious Interference with Contract
Unfair Trade Practices
C
A neighboring WISP to me ran in to this last year when a new
competitor moved in and placed towers (20' taller than the existing
WISP) within 1/4 mile of all the existing WISPs towers. I ended up
attempting to help the existing WISP but was unable to prove anything
besides noisy 2.4 GHz.
They had
No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a
jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is
interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous
interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether
the FCC will c
I guess that's a good point. I may be able to get it, but will it be
routable?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Allen Marsalis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:07
I like the sounds of that. It would be nice to have a /24 instead of a
block of IP addresses that isn't routable (provided to me in 10 address
blocks). I could then do proper routing on my network. Being PA space
would mean that it would have a higher chance of being routable instead of
PI /
That's what's currently on their web site. I'd assume that if it wasn't
current policy, it wouldn't be on their site.
Are you saying you thought one needed to demonstrate a /22 to get your own
assignment? That's what I was saying with that post, was that it has
changed one bit and now you on
Allen Marsalis wrote:
Yeah but will everyone route a /22?? I am no routing guru but in the
old days, you had to have a /19 for sprint to route it for instance. I
bought a /20 a couple of years later and had no problems out of Sprint
or anyone. Perhaps today's routers have so much memory, the
Onlist for my reply.
It's also a good onlist discusion.
I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who
intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause harm
to the business or operation and or for financial gain.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give a
At 02:24 PM 9/12/2007, Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of
address space to get your own, direct allocation.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222
You now only need two /24s to request your own /22 from Arin.
Yeah but will everyone route
It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies
out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in
order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable
evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know
of) against this
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:27 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of address
> > space to get your own, direct allocation.
> >
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222
> >
> > You now only need two /24s to request
Mike Hammett wrote:
That was in the multi-homed section of the web site as I believe
everyone s hould be multi-homed.
Could you provide documentation that one can get a /24 immediately if
multi-homed?
NPRM 4.2.3.6
"This policy allows a downstream customer's multihoming requirement to
serv
That was in the multi-homed section of the web site as I believe everyone s
hould be multi-homed.
Could you provide documentation that one can get a /24 immediately if
multi-homed?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From:
Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of address space to
get your own, direct allocation.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222
You now only need two /24s to request your own /22 from Arin.
If you are multi-homed you can request a /24 immedia
I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of address space to
get your own, direct allocation.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222
You now only need two /24s to request your own /22 from Arin.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Yes Belwave is there and they come highly recommended. I have talked with
them and they seem like good people. I will sign a contract with them this
week I hope. I was just wanting to find a better price per meg but it does
not look like it will happen.
Jory Privett
WCCS
- Original Me
Jory Privett wrote:
If you sell a national backbone what do you have in North Texas? I
need bandwidth desperately and cant find anything less than about $250/Meg.
I know you meant to send this offlist and ultimately, you did, but I
figured I would respond onlist in case others have a similar
Anyone use their billing & BMU solutions? Good/bad/ugly?
Thanks.
Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
** Join us at the WISPA Recept
Good post, Matt. Usually if one's not for Cogent, they have nothing good to
say about them. You were fair, however.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent:
Sorry was supposed to be off-list Doh...
Jory
- Original Message -
From: "Jory Privett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alternate transport providers, Cogent
If you sell a national backbone what do
If you sell a national backbone what do you have in North Texas? I need
bandwidth desperately and cant find anything less than about $250/Meg.
Jory Privett
WCCS
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
George Rogato wrote:
I'm very serious.
I've read it over and over again on the various list from those who
resell other bandwidth bashing cogent.
Understood, but we don't resell other bandwidth; we sell our own. We are
not a tier 1, but we do operate a national backbone and believe there
are
That clarifies it. I just wasn't following your line of questions as they
seemed rather vague. However, as I said, I'm not very acquainted with
Cogent.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:4
I am sincere, and I never intentionally stir the pot.
But when facts are miscrewed, I prefer to point out what I perceive is a
discrepancy.
Mike Hammett wrote:
I'd say they were sincere... at least that's how I took it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-i
Mike, you've been listening to too many sales droids on the
isp-bandwidth list and old time operators that would really like to
charge us 250.00 per meg.
George
Mike Hammett wrote:
Everyone else mostly gets along together. Obviously no one likes their
competition. Every few years one of C
I'd say they were sincere... at least that's how I took it.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: [
I'm very serious.
I've read it over and over again on the various list from those who
resell other bandwidth bashing cogent.
It's a stratergy, if you sell high, bash the low.
makes sense.
So if Matt says Cogent is the worse, I want him to back it up with facts.
I can point to some facts that
I think they failed via a "strategic investment" by some of the larger
players. (ATT I think?). The investment was large and like a typical dot-com
they spent and expanded far faster than they should have 'cause hey, there's
a second round coming and when they went looking for that second round
Everyone else mostly gets along together. Obviously no one likes their
competition. Every few years one of Cogent's peers de-peers them, causing a
big ruckus.
You can see what's going on via NANOG and ISP-Bandwidth. Lately the opinion
is that a few years ago Cogent wasn't worth their cheap
George,
I have read this email three times and still can't determine whether you are
sincerely asking a question(s) or whether you are stirring the pot here.
Please clarify professionally. I actually have been enjoying Matt's posts
this morning. I found them to be very informative. While we don
Widely known "where" Matt?
I'd like to know how you guys get the pulse of what everyone is thinking.
As for being the red headed step child nobody likes Mike, Do you think
they actually "like" each other, especially one as aggressive as Cogent
who is making the others drop their pricing?
Rick Harnish wrote:
Did they fail because of the immature technology or a failed business plan?
Would the more mature technology available today have made an impact on
Metricom-Ricochets ultimate success or failure?
I was a Ricochet user in the Bay Area and was quite happy with the
service even
Did they fail because of the immature technology or a failed business plan?
Would the more mature technology available today have made an impact on
Metricom-Ricochets ultimate success or failure?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ralph
Sent:
Yes they have.
Metricom-Ricochet. They failed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Allen Marsalis
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks
I take it that nobody has
Mike Hammett wrote:
I do agree with what you say, but in the access business too much
bandwidth is never enough. This kind of goes full circle to Rick's
original post. People will be wanting more bandwidth. If you're using
20 megs now, expect to use 100 megs in a short couple of years.
Tha
I do agree with what you say, but in the access business too much bandwidth
is never enough. This kind of goes full circle to Rick's original post.
People will be wanting more bandwidth. If you're using 20 megs now, expect
to use 100 megs in a short couple of years.
-
Mike Hammett
Inte
Since we were discussing bandwidth, I thought I would mention for anyone
that is doing full tables on older equipment you may want to look at
your TCAM size. It seems about 30% of currently in use Cisco gear can
only old up to 244,000 routes. We currently have a little of 236,000
routes in our
Mike Hammett wrote:
I have yet to see anyone go under $15 on 100 megs. That said, I haven't
really been looking in a few months.
Tier 1 is available for under $15. Of course the price per meg gets
people all screwed up since most people don't want 100 megs. For
example, let's say you are loo
I have yet to see anyone go under $15 on 100 megs. That said, I haven't
really been looking in a few months.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesd
Matt Liotta wrote:
Cogent is awful and widely known for it. Nevertheless, the do have an
important place in the industry. If you use them for an upstream make
sure you have another one and understand enough about BGP to get around
the traffic engineering they do.
I should also add that there
Matt wrote:
Is anyone using Cogent as a bandwidth provider? Pros and cons?
Cogent is awful and widely known for it. Nevertheless, the do have an
important place in the industry. If you use them for an upstream make
sure you have another one and understand enough about BGP to get around
the t
What are the FCC service codes of other users of 900 MHz?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON
**
I don't have them, but I'm saying what I hear. Everything on their network
is great. Sometimes there's issues with their peering locations. Everyone
has them, but Cogent seems to have more.
That's because they're the red-headed stepchild of the carrier world. None
of the carriers really li
66 matches
Mail list logo
