Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead of the curve. Most of you are, quite bluntly, behind the curve now. This is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve Comment on this to the FCC--just comment in favor of Network Neutrality. Believe it or not, you will do MUCH better under this model than your competition because it very much favors your business model and is incredibly harmful to your competitor's
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead
Re: [WISPA] vlans
Travis, Are you routing or bridging between between the clients, APs, and your router? It would probably be worth doing packet captures and actually seeing what the traffic is. If you are routing between the AP and the router, then it is very unlikely that your problem is broadcast related. Unless you have a _lot_ of CPEs that are bridged back to the router and/or don't route on the CPE, I would be not really think that ARP is really a problem. Broadcast storms generally are the result of 3 things, off the top of my head: 1. having a loop on your layer 2 (Ethernet) (shouldn't be an issue) 2. _way_ too many devices in a layer 2 broadcast domain (may be an issue) 3. Bad and/or malicious network programs generating too much broadcast traffic. If you control the CPE and you route on the CPE, then this can't really be an issue. You are correct on the implementation of VLANs; you will also need to create virtual interfaces for each vlan on the router and setup IPs and routing for each virtual interface. Feel free to ping me offline if you need more assistance. Thanks, Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Nov 18, 2007 11:47 PM, Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That should, now in order to do that you will need to have a separate subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe). Have you done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests? How many hosts do you have off of that tower? Ryan On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat). Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the traffic on the router itself. My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is plugged into the trunk port? Would this stop the broadcasts from affecting other AP's on that switch? Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing? Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 900 Grid Vs. Yagi
I have a situation where interference is playing a part in degrading my signal. I am currently using flat panel 13db antennas. I want to try a yagi or grid (been looking at Pac-Wireless) to narrow the beam and hope to overcome this problem. We were fine until the leaves fell off all the trees- they must have been guarding us. So, does anyone have a comparison or preference... they have a 13db yagi, and a 15db grid. Other than the fact that a grid is not cosmetically preferred, what kind of results can I expect or is there a preference of yagi type or manufacturer. Thanks in advance- Luke Pack Wireless Administrator Internet Services of Northern Illinois (815) 380-3773 Ext. 286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900 Grid Vs. Yagi
crap, forgot to mention, I am using Canopy 900 APs. - Original Message - From: Luke Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:03 AM Subject: [WISPA] 900 Grid Vs. Yagi I have a situation where interference is playing a part in degrading my signal. I am currently using flat panel 13db antennas. I want to try a yagi or grid (been looking at Pac-Wireless) to narrow the beam and hope to overcome this problem. We were fine until the leaves fell off all the trees- they must have been guarding us. So, does anyone have a comparison or preference... they have a 13db yagi, and a 15db grid. Other than the fact that a grid is not cosmetically preferred, what kind of results can I expect or is there a preference of yagi type or manufacturer. Thanks in advance- Luke Pack Wireless Administrator Internet Services of Northern Illinois (815) 380-3773 Ext. 286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900 Grid Vs. Yagi
We have always liked Yagis better than grids. Additionally, we prefer higher gain (tighter beamwidth) antennas with lower transmit power. Of course, with 900Mhz is can be tough to get higher gain. Besides going the parabolic route, which is problematic with 900Mhz; you can look at using loop yagis. Checkout the following: http://www.directivesystems.com/antenna1.htm -Matt Luke Pack wrote: I have a situation where interference is playing a part in degrading my signal. I am currently using flat panel 13db antennas. I want to try a yagi or grid (been looking at Pac-Wireless) to narrow the beam and hope to overcome this problem. We were fine until the leaves fell off all the trees- they must have been guarding us. So, does anyone have a comparison or preference... they have a 13db yagi, and a 15db grid. Other than the fact that a grid is not cosmetically preferred, what kind of results can I expect or is there a preference of yagi type or manufacturer. Thanks in advance- Luke Pack Wireless Administrator Internet Services of Northern Illinois (815) 380-3773 Ext. 286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
Who has used 3650 in a true PtMP residential customer application? How does it really work compared to 2.4? Next year I'm putting up 2 more towers and had planned on 2.4 GHz 90* sectors. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data
Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
Mike Hammett wrote: Who has used 3650 in a true PtMP residential customer application? How does it really work compared to 2.4? Next year I'm putting up 2 more towers and had planned on 2.4 GHz 90* sectors. As far as I am aware, no one has received a license in 3650 to provide service to customers. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye
RE: [WISPA] vlans
Behalf Of Russ Kreigh snip A temporary, or transitional step would be to replace the switch with a Mikrotik, connecting each AP's ethernet into it. And implement port filters to prevent ARP between ports. [Mac says] I don't think its ARP issues, but I think Russ has an excellent idea. I would first run Ethereal on that segment of the network to confirm the issue at hand. Let us know what you see - - - it may be just rebroadcasts/retransmits from bad signal levels at the AP - - YOU BAD BAD BOY!! :) Mac WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people than cows :). From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower bandwidth costs. Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get
Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
People have used basically the same gear in 3650 for a couple years now thanks to experimental licenses. I know of two that have, but I have not heard their input yet on my latest inquiry. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP Mike Hammett wrote: Who has used 3650 in a true PtMP residential customer application? How does it really work compared to 2.4? Next year I'm putting up 2 more towers and had planned on 2.4 GHz 90* sectors. As far as I am aware, no one has received a license in 3650 to provide service to customers. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
George, No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Marlon includes, if I remember, 6GB of data and then charges for overages. If you are _really_ struggling with people abusing your service, put something like this in your TOS. Then, your customers can take their 6GB a month and transfer 6GB of video or 6GB of MP3s or 6GB of email, or 6GB of web traffic, or any combination, or figure out some crazy use for 6GB a month that no one ever dreamed of. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. You said If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. This isn't true. Comcast is NOT rate limiting, they are filtering specific types of content. True, net neutrality is regulation and does tie your hands. Sure. But, it ties your hands in a fashion that is MUCH more favorable to you than you your competition. You can operate a single pipe/service business model profitably (or at least I assume so); your competition can't. Just out of curiosity, what is your sales pitch? In the end--if you engage in all the negative business practices of your competition, have similar (if not more expensive pricing), and invest much less in network deployment on a per-customer basis, what is your value proposition? I'm not meaning that to be rude--I just have seen most of the traditional arguments I used to use to recommend independent ISPs to people disappear over the past few years as margins have grown smaller (with some very positive notable exceptions). If you keep on down this road, aren't you just a smaller version of your competition who ends up being more expensive and less reliable* (albeit with local tech support)? (* This is just a guess, but I'd guess that most independent ISPs have more outages than most of the major players due to different levels of infrastructure investment. Not an indictment of anyone specifically.) I support regulating Internet access towards Net Neutrality for two reasons: 1. I have a broad understanding of the Internet and it's potential--I view it a little broader than just a means of buying stuff on Amazon and Ebay and sending an email or two (hundred). 2. The vast majority of the Internet subscribers out there are tied to fairly monopolistic providers who offer directly competing services to those provided on the Internet. I prefer Internet-based video because I have access to a much larger selection than the 100 or so (mostly identical) channels provided by a standard cable MSO--however, Comcast's fight is DIRECTLY related to my ability to use these services. BTW, I am relatively a light subscriber in terms of bandwidth :). This fight is _not_ about the ability to profitably offer Internet access--it's about the ability to restrict content to sustain aging business models that are threatened by newer technologies. Also, telecom is not free market :). It is, in the end, a utility, and, as such, should be subject to some regulations and restrictions to ensure that it operates under some pretense of public interest. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:47 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Clint Ricker wrote: No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some don't. My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, annoying twenty or more other customers. Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other service providers, and I don't weep overly for them. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The application is very important. If the technology that we had at our disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care less. Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use the better for us. Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can provide our customers is superior customer service. At this time we are behind on every other metric, be it bandwidth, latency, etc. We also have a very limited amount of resources to deploy in. Compared to cable that has literally 2ghz plus of spectrum to use we can't even hope to compete on a bang for buck approach. So with that in mind I have to agree that Comcast's is the only way we can survive for last mile delivery. I also agree as for a carrier / wholesale the pipe should be as dumb as possible and just pass bits as fast as it can. My main concern is that as a private business owner I am the only one qualified to say how my network and business should operate. No government agency or bureaucrat could possibly understand my business better then myself. Comcast is no different. Let the free market figure out how to make this work. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com David E. Smith wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some don't. My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, annoying twenty or more other customers. Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other service providers, and I don't weep overly for them. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
Mike Hammett wrote: People have used basically the same gear in 3650 for a couple years now thanks to experimental licenses. I know of two that have, but I have not heard their input yet on my latest inquiry. Those of that have using experimental licenses only got to test things such as propagation. We where not allowed to provide commercial services. Anyone who might have used their license incorrectly is certainly not going to admit to it on a public list. Therefore, your question cannot be answered. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks
I didn't say trying to partner with 500 WISPs around the country, using different products. I was referring to singling out maybe the top 20 candidates nationwide, and then helping those 20 be all they can be. There are many WISPs that could take off with jsut a bit of funding. Banks don;t have the motivation, as they don;t have anything to contribute other than money. Well funded ISPs on the other hand have a lot more to offer and alot more to gain, to justify taking the risk of assisting the small WISPs. I can give an example of an outsourced support company, who helps investors buy Dial UP ISPs, in exchange for letting the support company do the support for the newly bought subscribers. There are enough WISPS that just use Canopy, or enough WISPs that Just use Trango, or Enough WISPs that just use Alvarion. How is it any different that a WISP operating there own network? Or a Small WISP buying up another small WISP, and converting their system, to the central best case standard they decided on? But moe so my point was... why not put the money into uniquely problems, and they catch is defining what those problems are.. The problems are things like universal provision systems and customer tracking systems, that could document the many things needing to be documented to pull off a large scale role up or multi company partnership support program. The truth is, Earthlink does a lot of things really really well. Right now Earthlink is giving away all the things it does really well to companies like Google. It doesn't have to be that way. There are many models that could work for Earthlink in Broadband, or I should say market segments, it doesn't have to be wifi. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different everything. It would never work. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Like we didn't see it comming :-) The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change in model, or something like that. What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and become one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
Reading Covad's narrative rationale for their license, it sounded to me like they were offering limited commercial service on a limited, clearly-labeled-as-experimental basis: The use of limited market studies will permit equipment testing (like other markets) as well as deployment of limited subscriber equipment to understand market requirements as well as technological issues associated with this spectrum. Covad hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of Section 5.93 in conducting its limited market study. In particular, Covad will: (a) own all of the transmitting and/or receiving equipment; and (b) be responsible for informing anyone participating in the experiment that the service is granted under an experimental authorization and is strictly temporary. Here's Section 5.93: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfrsid=c8dac1967310be65aa88f8d1956f1241rgn=div8view=textnode=47:1.0.1.1.6.2.237.22idno=47 (sorry for the long link; TinyURL isn't working) Their limited deployment consisted of 16 Aperto Packetwave base stations and 200 subscriber units with authorization to operate at 20+ locations across many markets: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=currentapplication_seq=30877license_seq=31192 Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] BumbleBee Spectrum Analyzer
Has anybody used one of these with their WISP operations and care to comment on how well they work, either publicly or privately. We are looking to purchase one, but would like to make sure they work in real life situations. The two applications we would like to use them for are tracking down sources of interference and for new sites performing some initial baseline signal level readings to see if the site will work. I appreciate any feedback that anybody can provide. Thanks! * Larry A. Weidig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/ * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Matt, All your points are very good, and I agree with. The issue with Peer to Peer is that the entity controlling what data gets transfered is NOT the person that bought the broadband connection. Most end users aren;t savy enough to even know what impact the peer to peer software would have on there systems, or that it was even happening in the background. So sure the end user has the right to use it for what they want to, but does the open market have the right to use the customer's circuit for what ever they want to? Its sorta like when you get a Large Spam file attachment in your Email box, that crashes an individualls Inbox or Outlook. In the end user's eyes, the providers Breoadband service doesn't work right. When things are automatic and stealth in the background, the consumer is out of the loop, on what goes on with their connection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that breaks specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management. Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications or protocols. I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a parasite on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet, and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. I personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for these purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that I have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to open an excessive number of connections to use it. This not a violation of Network Neutrality or an example of Intentional Degradation to an application. It is optimization. It is also the responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best interest. Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution. If there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading to the idea that bits are free, which is total B.S. There is always an underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that cost needs to be taken into consideration. The free bits exist in the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak hours. But not all bits are free. In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing - it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type behavior. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Anthony Will wrote: Here is some food for thought, We may
Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks
Yes... But my approach is different. Its not to be a wholesaler or a reseller. Instead Earthlink takes teh roll of a friendly VentureCapitol Except they take it one step further... The WISP is required to Outsource Support, for large projects, to the VC's support company (Earthlink). The WISP is required to Outsourec Content, again, to the VC's content company (company) The WISP is required to Outsoure VOIP, again to . Earthlink just becomes a service or a product, just like buying a CISCO Router, or Vonage account, or any other. But because they also fund you... they are really concidered a partner. But they don;t have to own you, because they ahve secured a revenue trail from you already. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks WISPA already has a committee dedicated to designing a wholesale program that would make this doable. We just need a big customer to work with. We can already document that WISPs pass well over 2 million homes. Lot of customer potential there. marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different everything. It would never work. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Like we didn't see it comming :-) The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change in model, or something like that. What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and become one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List:
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Apples an oranges here. We as providers are paying for dedicated bandwidth, not shared. Shared connections are a different beast altogether, and I really would assume that's what we're talking about when we go rate-limiting ANYTHING. Dedicated connections should be able to do whatever they want. Because they are paying for it, and you are not losing money on that customer. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the
[WISPA] P2P Countermeasures
To All, The issue of P2P rears its relatively unattractivehead in my neck of the woods from time to time. This is one of those times. - So, what is everyone doing to'counter' the influx of traffic from P2P? - What are the most effective P2P countermeasures that you have employed, lately? - For those fo you that respond, I will put it all in a file and make it available to all, via Scriv. Heck who should approve the dumpingofthat info onto WISPA - Rick Harnish - I'll checkwith him. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures
Ron, I think this will be answered readily on the members list when asked. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wallace Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures To All, The issue of P2P rears its relatively unattractivehead in my neck of the woods from time to time. This is one of those times. - So, what is everyone doing to'counter' the influx of traffic from P2P? - What are the most effective P2P countermeasures that you have employed, lately? - For those fo you that respond, I will put it all in a file and make it available to all, via Scriv. Heck who should approve the dumpingofthat info onto WISPA - Rick Harnish - I'll checkwith him. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?
If you have an APC SmartUPS 750 XL, you can add APC battery packs. They even have a UXBP24 that does Battery Volt-Amp-Hour Capacity 3360 It is definitely more expensive than other batteries, but it does plug right in John Thomas Tom DeReggi wrote: You also want to use a combination of putting the batteries in series and parallel, to keep the amperage within specs supported by the equipment. Its just not an issue of the cable and batteries, but also what the radio's ports will handle. Also charging is a factor. The more batteries the larger the load on the charging circuit. Most UPS manufactuirers do not give the specs on the load that the charging circuit can handle. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use? Hi, Again, you need to be careful... the charging unit in the smaller UPS systems (700, 1000, 1400) is not designed to run for 3-4 days to charge up 10 batteries that were drained from an outage. You will burn up the UPS. I would not recommend more than 4 external batteries on any small UPS. Travis Microserv Mark Nash wrote: Hooked up properly, you should be able to put in as many as you want/have space for. Can anyone share how to hook up batteries in parallel vs. series? Also, once you put in the SNMP card, you can tell it how many external batteries you have. This is a way of estimating how much runtime you will have. It's not accurate, because you're using different batteries than it expects. For 2 batteries, I enter in 4 external batteries for this value. It is as close as I've found you can get it. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use? Thanks for the advice. I'm going to try one. I'm wondering how many batteries I can gang together using the ups you mentioned. George Mark Nash wrote: UPS - $45 on ebay (buy one without batteries) SNMP card - $125 on ebay 2 batteries 2 outdoor battery compartments: $150-$175 (more, depending on battery quality). I get mine at Bimart. misc connectors wire $20 I had one site up for 36 hours with Trango Tlink, small switch, and Tranzeo AP. I thnk that's best-case-scenario. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use? Not sure how much I need really. It's the downtime. This one pop has a trango, a wrap a metro and a cheap switch. Usually when it looses power it could be 24 hours or more. With your set up, how much do you pay including the 2 rv batteries and how long have you had for a power outage? I just ordered one of the cheapo generics for my house to check out. But generic usually leaves that feeling of uncertainty that makes me uneasy. Mark Nash wrote: George, are you really needing that much? 3KVA? Or is it the higher battery capacity you're wanting? I buy used APC Smart-UPS SU700NET from ebay, without batteries. Then I buy a couple RV batteries and hook them up (outside the enclosure, of course). I put in a AP9617 SNMP device and it gives me a little remote control w/e-mail notification. Doesn't do everything I want (PDU-ability to power off each receptacle individually, watchdog). On a remote site, it'll give anywhere from 12-24 hours depending on load whatchya got out there... Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: [WISPA] Which UPS to use? I need to buy a few ups's for some remote pops. I was looking at APC and the place I buy stuff from had these: http://www.pacificgeek.com/product.asp?ID=52353C=216S=-1 Is this worth buying, or should I go with APC at twice the price? http://www.apcc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SUA3000 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I may be wrong, but net neutrality when out a couple of months ago. There is no more net neutrality. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm not talking about dedicated commercial bandwidth. I'm trying to distinguish it from a consumer broadband connection. A consumer internet connection has always had restrictions. I would like to be able to offer a consumer a connection that allows P2P, and anything else they may want to do. I just want to be able to insure quality of service. In order to do this I have to be able to shape and prioritize bits. If I can't rate limit or prioritize one type of data from the next, then my hands are tied and it's willy nilly anything goes. I do not sell an anything goes connection. Although my service is a consumer based best effort speeds up to, I run a smooth network. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
