RE: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

2007-11-21 Thread Mac Dearman
Steve,


   Thanks for the clarification and comments. There is always a lot of 
conjecture on some of these subjects that the normal man who has never held 
an experimental license holds as truths, but in reality is not totally true at 
all. I (as I am sure others) appreciate the time you take to get the facts 
straight on some of the subjects that come up on list.

 Continue educating us and keep us in line! :)

Thanks
Mac Dearman







 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Steve Stroh
 Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:53 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
 
 An experimental license allows you to test systems, spectrum, or
 techniques that otherwise aren't normally allowed.
 
 I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650
 experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it,
 commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental
 license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license
 doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems
 that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be
 now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing.
 
 Those experimental deployments that I heard about were PMP for
 backhaul and for access for business customers; I haven't heard of any
 3650 residential deployments, though that would be feasible using 3.5
 Fixed WiMAX CPE that has been updated for 3650 rules.
 
 It was kept pretty quiet, except with the vendors that were supplying
 experimentally compliant 3650 gear, but there were MANY larger
 Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers who used
 experimental licenses similar to Covad's rationale quoted in Dylan
 Oliver's message. While all those deployments had to be similarly
 couched in yes, we acknowledge it's experimental... language, they
 all used such systems for commercial, revenue service... THAT was the
 experiment - to see if it was feasible, economical, and reliable. It
 worked; looks like 3650 will be quite the success, especially with the
 mandated coordination / non-interference between competing service
 providers in urban areas.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Steve
 
 On Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  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
 
 
 --
 Steve Stroh
 Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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/





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] USB - Ethernet Adapters

2007-11-21 Thread Scott Reed

I like the TrendNet cards. TE100-PCIWIN or something like that.

Mark Nash wrote:

I buy these and keep them in the truck to deal with the out-of-the-ordinary
case where the customer does not have an ethernet port in their computer.

I used a Startech, which has been discontinued.  It was about $8.  Anyone
know of any others that are inexpensive and work well?

Thanks in advance...

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax





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/

  


--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.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] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

2007-11-21 Thread Matt Liotta

Steve Stroh wrote:

I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650
experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it,
commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental
license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license
doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems
that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be
now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing.

I am aware that some operators attempted to apply section 5.3j as a way 
to providing commercial services using their experimental license. I 
have included the relevant language below. Theoretically, if the 
operator owns the equipment and informs the customer that their service 
is an experiment and is strictly temporary then the operator could use 
3650. Without arguing whether any reasonable customer would accept those 
conditions. How do you collect revenue on such a customer? When we sell 
internet and/or phone service to a customer they sign a contract that 
lays out what service(s) we are providing them, the term, and ultimately 
how much the customer owes us. Contract terms are a two way street. In 
this case, that means if you have to shutdown the experiment before the 
end of the contract term you as an operator are in default of your 
contract. This means of course that you cannot have a term associated 
with the service. This leads to a very specialized contract or worse no 
contract. Again, what customer signs up for a situation like this?


Sec.  5.93  Limited market studies.

Unless otherwise stated in the instrument of authorization, licenses
granted for the purpose of limited market studies pursuant to Sec.
5.3(j) of this part are subject to the following conditions:
(a) All transmitting and/or receiving equipment used in the study
shall be owned by the licensee.
(b) The licensee is responsible for informing anyone participating
in the experiment that the service or device is granted under an
experimental authorization and is strictly temporary.
(c) The size and scope of the experiment are subject to limitations
as the Commission shall establish on a case-by-case basis. If the
Commission subsequently determines that a market study is not so
limited, the study shall be immediately terminated

-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] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

2007-11-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
As I remember the rules for the experimental license applications, it 
specifically says that they can't be used for commercial purposes.


But it really doesn't matter, the FCC knew what was being done with the 
bands and wanted to see what would happen anyway.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP



An experimental license allows you to test systems, spectrum, or
techniques that otherwise aren't normally allowed.

I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650
experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it,
commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental
license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license
doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems
that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be
now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing.

Those experimental deployments that I heard about were PMP for
backhaul and for access for business customers; I haven't heard of any
3650 residential deployments, though that would be feasible using 3.5
Fixed WiMAX CPE that has been updated for 3650 rules.

It was kept pretty quiet, except with the vendors that were supplying
experimentally compliant 3650 gear, but there were MANY larger
Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers who used
experimental licenses similar to Covad's rationale quoted in Dylan
Oliver's message. While all those deployments had to be similarly
couched in yes, we acknowledge it's experimental... language, they
all used such systems for commercial, revenue service... THAT was the
experiment - to see if it was feasible, economical, and reliable. It
worked; looks like 3650 will be quite the success, especially with the
mandated coordination / non-interference between competing service
providers in urban areas.

Thanks,

Steve

On Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


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



--
Steve Stroh
Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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/ 





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

2007-11-21 Thread George Rogato

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but 
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this 
burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 
1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else 
is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, 
etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they 
will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have 
bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly 
limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow 
reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of 
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want 
a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something 
different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind 
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this 
content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper per 
meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so
squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks 
who

desperately want it.  With more and more apps providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our
customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that
deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a
valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP.  Bandwidth 
shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
respect to

high bandwidth usage.

IMHO.

Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get 
something

done now. ;)

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 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC



Another thought is

Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.

If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's
customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like Akamia.

Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
compensation for services?





-- 


--

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/


--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

RE: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

2007-11-21 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
It does matter though. If the rules state that you can not do something,
don't do it, it is really simple. I never read the rules, and never applied
for one. The thing people need to understand is the FCC is probably the last
person, next to the IRS, that you want watching you. The FCC knows what was
going on, and they took notes I am sure, someday it could come to bite all
of us in the but..

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

As I remember the rules for the experimental license applications, it 
specifically says that they can't be used for commercial purposes.

But it really doesn't matter, the FCC knew what was being done with the 
bands and wanted to see what would happen anyway.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP


 An experimental license allows you to test systems, spectrum, or
 techniques that otherwise aren't normally allowed.

 I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650
 experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it,
 commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental
 license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license
 doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems
 that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be
 now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing.

 Those experimental deployments that I heard about were PMP for
 backhaul and for access for business customers; I haven't heard of any
 3650 residential deployments, though that would be feasible using 3.5
 Fixed WiMAX CPE that has been updated for 3650 rules.

 It was kept pretty quiet, except with the vendors that were supplying
 experimentally compliant 3650 gear, but there were MANY larger
 Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers who used
 experimental licenses similar to Covad's rationale quoted in Dylan
 Oliver's message. While all those deployments had to be similarly
 couched in yes, we acknowledge it's experimental... language, they
 all used such systems for commercial, revenue service... THAT was the
 experiment - to see if it was feasible, economical, and reliable. It
 worked; looks like 3650 will be quite the success, especially with the
 mandated coordination / non-interference between competing service
 providers in urban areas.

 Thanks,

 Steve

 On Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 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


 -- 
 Steve Stroh
 Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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/ 





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

2007-11-21 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

We are using Mikrotik to cap the p2p stuff. Yes, some stuff is going to 
get through but very little overall... and you can't stop 100% of it 
all the time. If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p 
traffic, you have bigger issues. :)


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but 
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY 
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
usage, but we allow reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of 
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
something different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind 
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so
squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to 
folks who
desperately want it.  With more and more apps providing 
high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our
customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that
deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage 
is a
valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP.  Bandwidth 
shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
respect to

high bandwidth usage.

IMHO.

Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get 
something

done now. ;)

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 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC



Another thought is

Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast 
network to

support it's business plan.

If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to 
it's

customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like Akamia.

Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
compensation for services?





-- 


--

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: 

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread Scottie Arnett
I agree and disagree with this. As of right now, Internet Service is still a
unregulated business except for things such CALEA, Child Porn laws, and
such. We are not a telecommunications utility and that is where the FCC
makes faults because they are losing control. They have not got Internet
Service regulated by Congress and such and I think that is why they give the
cable and telco's more and more because they are regulated and can put some
control on them through other means.

I am all for regulation if they will give me some of that USF that they
freely give out to telcos. I think Marlon has been working on this some. In
rural areas, I have heard that is as much as $4000 per year per customer,  I
do NOT know how much truth there is to that. 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just
like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to
place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and
should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility.
I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do
whatever the hell I want with it idea.   What level and what type of
regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should
exist on some level is a given.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.



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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Adam Kennedy
There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with.



Scottie Arnett wrote:

Hey All,

I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can anyone
tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS lines into just
to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? Not wanting to pour
major  into this until I have learned a little about it. TIA.

Sincerely,
Scottie Arnett
President
Info-ed, Inc.
615-699-3049
931-243-2101 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007

10:01 AM
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.



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/


--

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761



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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Scottie Arnett
Hey All,

I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can anyone
tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS lines into just
to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? Not wanting to pour
major  into this until I have learned a little about it. TIA.

Sincerely,
Scottie Arnett
President
Info-ed, Inc.
615-699-3049
931-243-2101 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.



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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Scottie Arnett
Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have
regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have FXO
lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk


There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with.


Scottie Arnett wrote:
 Hey All,
 
 I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can 
 anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS 
 lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? 
 Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little 
 about it. TIA.
 
 Sincerely,
 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-ed, Inc.
 615-699-3049
 931-243-2101
 
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:
11/21/2007
 10:01 AM
  
 
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check 
 out www.info-ed.com for information.
 
 
 --
 --
 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/

-- 

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761




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/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.



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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Scottie, if you want to include outside POTS lines to access with the
server, you need an FXO card.  Single FXO cards made from modem components
work well and are, as mentioned by Adam, about $8 to $15 depending on source
and shipping.  There are 4 FXO digiums but they cost hundreds.

If you are going to access the external phone universe by means of an
Internet-connected service, you don't need an FXO card since no analog
outside lines will be needed.

For phones, you can get ATAs such as those from LinkSys or Grandstream for
about $40 per line and plug in a regular phone as an extension on the
Asterisk or get an IP phone for anywhere from that price up to hundreds for
a slick Polycom or Cisco.

We've got all that, in fact.  It's been just terrific.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:17 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have
regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have FXO
lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk


There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with.


Scottie Arnett wrote:
 Hey All,
 
 I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can 
 anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS 
 lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? 
 Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little 
 about it. TIA.
 
 Sincerely,
 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-ed, Inc.
 615-699-3049
 931-243-2101
 
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:
11/21/2007
 10:01 AM
  
 
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check 
 out www.info-ed.com for information.
 
 
 --
 --
 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/

-- 

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761




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/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007
10:01 AM
 

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.




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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Adam Kennedy
I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay 
are regular POTS.



Scottie Arnett wrote:

Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have
regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have FXO
lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk


There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around with.



Scottie Arnett wrote:

Hey All,

I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can 
anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS 
lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? 
Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little 
about it. TIA.


Sincerely,
Scottie Arnett
President
Info-ed, Inc.
615-699-3049
931-243-2101

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:

11/21/2007

10:01 AM
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check 
out www.info-ed.com for information.



--
--
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/




--

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761



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] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Well, Adam, you weren't far off.  The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI card
prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per card so
I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction.  

Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29.  It's all in
the noise.

. . . j o n a t h a n


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay 
are regular POTS.


Scottie Arnett wrote:
 Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have
 regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have
FXO
 lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
 dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
 Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk
 
 
 There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
 let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around
with.
 
 
 Scottie Arnett wrote:
 Hey All,

 I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can 
 anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS 
 lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? 
 Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little 
 about it. TIA.

 Sincerely,
 Scottie Arnett
 President
 Info-ed, Inc.
 615-699-3049
 931-243-2101

 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:
 11/21/2007
 10:01 AM
  

 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


 Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check 
 out www.info-ed.com for information.


 --
 --
 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/
 

-- 

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761




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

2007-11-21 Thread tonylist
Well this is yet to be seen, the noise floor at 3.65Ghz should be very
clean. This means you will be able to make links as much lower signal levels
then with 2.4Ghz. And OFDM will help with NearLOS issues with buildings, but
if are dealing with trees OFDM is not going to help much this will come down
to simply physic.

Sincerely, Tony Morella
Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
http://www.demarctech.com 

This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
this message. This communication may contain  confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all
copies of this communication
 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP

That's pretty much what I thought it would be for, hence the 2 mile radius 
indoor CPE just isn't going to fly.


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


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP


 Mike

 Standard 3.65Ghz OFDM does not work as well as 2.4Ghz OFDM but it's better
 than 5Ghz OFDM. Right now we see 3.65Ghz as a great replacement for areas
 that have issues with LOS 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz business level users as well as
 PtP back haul links. This is simply because in most areas there is little 
 to
 no source of interference where the signal to noise levels are going to be
 25dBm+! And of course you have very little to worry about when it comes to
 new sites coming on line, for one you will know who and where they are 
 plus
 the rules states very clearly licenses holders must work together.

 Sincerely, Tony Morella
 Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
 Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
 http://www.demarctech.com

 This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
 meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
 disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
 this message. This communication may contain  confidential and privileged
 material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
 other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
 confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
 distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
 recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete 
 all
 copies of this communication






 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [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/






 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!

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread George Rogato
Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.






Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,


 If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

Travis
Microserv






George Rogato wrote:

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but 
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY 
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
usage, but we allow reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of 
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
something different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind 
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so
squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to 
folks who
desperately want it.  With more and more apps providing 
high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our
customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that
deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage 
is a
valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP.  Bandwidth 
shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
respect to

high bandwidth usage.

IMHO.

Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get 
something

done now. ;)

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 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC



Another thought is

Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast 
network to

support it's business plan.

If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to 
it's

customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like Akamia.

Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
compensation for services?





-- 


--

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/

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.





Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,
 
  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
 traffic, you have bigger issues. :)
 
 Travis
 Microserv
 



 George Rogato wrote:
 How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


 Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,

 First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 
 but
 otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
 based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
 this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
 they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.

 The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
 else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
 competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
 connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
 caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
 for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
 usage, but we allow reasonable usage).

 Travis
 Microserv

 George Rogato wrote:
 I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 
 of
 traffic and rate limit them.
 And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
 various offerings we can provide.
 Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
 rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
 want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
 something different, then it's price c.

 The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




 Mark Nash wrote:
 This is a good debate.

 What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
 for the
 last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
 $$$ off
 of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
 connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
 this content
 proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
 per meg,
 you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
 lower the
 cost of bandwidth.

 However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're 
 not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
 anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
 providing high-throughput
 content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
 going
 with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

 My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting 
 our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
 say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
 heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for 
 an ISP.  Bandwidth shaping,
 bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
 you have
 this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
 respect to
 high bandwidth usage.

 IMHO.

 Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get
 something
 done now. ;)

 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 20, 2007 8:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


 Another thought is

 Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
 network to
 support it's business plan.

 If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files 
 to
 it's
 customer base, why 

[WISPA] God Willing and the Creek Don't Rise

2007-11-21 Thread CHUCK PROFITO

Michael,
Thank you son from all of us at CV-ACCESS and all the Profito family. We
understand how proud you are of him, and at the same time how you would like
to chain him to the tower! :)  Supporting and backing them is NOT NUTS. Your
perspective is fine. 
Both of our boys and daughter-in-law served in Iraq and all, by the grace of
GOD, came home safely. One of our boys is out now on a medical, and the
other son and his wife are at Fort Sill waiting on a future deployment.  
Thanks Giving is a very special day here too.

Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California




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

2007-11-21 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
So, I'm right? Unlimited BWYou are lucky.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a 
lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I 
sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse 
frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network 
is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base 
and not too heavily impact my network.

I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it.

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
 You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  
 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an 
 ap in about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per 
 radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring 
 the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put 
 six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 
 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 
 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, 
 and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from 
 the fiber head in.  Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the 
 traffic.
 
 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 George Rogato
 Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
 
 
 Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
 much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
 and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
 going to be very noticable.
 Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
 happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.
 
 
 
 
 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,

   If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
 traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

 Travis
 Microserv

 
 
 
 George Rogato wrote:
 How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


 Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,

 First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day,
 but
 otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
 based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
 this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
 they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.

 The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY 
 else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
 competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
 connection, they will start switching to something that does not 
 have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is 
 no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 
 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage).

 Travis
 Microserv

 George Rogato wrote:
 I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types
 of
 traffic and rate limit them.
 And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
 various offerings we can provide.
 Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
 rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
 want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
 something different, then it's price c.

 The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




 Mark Nash wrote:
 This is a good debate.

 What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my 
 mind for the last year or so.  As 
 Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off
 of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
 connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
 this content
 proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
 per meg,
 you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
 lower the
 cost of bandwidth.

 However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're
 not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
 anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
 providing high-throughput
 content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
 going
 with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

 My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting
 our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
 say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
 heavy usage 

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread George Rogato
Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into 
the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in 
or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to 
and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little 
abusing johnny another.


for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being 
able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue.




CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.






Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,


  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

Travis
Microserv






George Rogato wrote:

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 
but
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
usage, but we allow reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 
of

traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
something different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're 
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting 
our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for 
an ISP.  Bandwidth shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
respect to

high bandwidth usage.

IMHO.

Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get
something
done now. ;)

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original 

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread George Rogato
Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a 
lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I 
sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse 
frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network 
is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base 
and not too heavily impact my network.


I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it.

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.






Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,


  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

Travis
Microserv






George Rogato wrote:

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 
but
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
usage, but we allow reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 
of

traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
something different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're 
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting 
our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for 
an ISP.  Bandwidth shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 
you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with 
respect to

high bandwidth usage.

IMHO.

Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get
something
done now. ;)

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- 

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread George Rogato

I wish


CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

So, I'm right? Unlimited BWYou are lucky.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a 
lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I 
sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse 
frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network 
is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base 
and not too heavily impact my network.


I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it.

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  
1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an 
ap in about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per 
radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring 
the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put 
six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 
6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 
or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, 
and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from 
the fiber head in.  Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the 
traffic.


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 George Rogato

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.






Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,


  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

Travis
Microserv





George Rogato wrote:

How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day,
but
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.


The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY 
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not 
have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is 
no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 
bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage).


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types
of
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 
want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 
something different, then it's price c.


The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:

This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my 
mind for the last year or so.  As 
Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the

cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going

with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting
our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan 

Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-21 Thread Adam Kennedy

Must be inflation :P


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

Well, Adam, you weren't far off.  The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI card
prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per card so
I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction.  


Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29.  It's all in
the noise.

. . . j o n a t h a n


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay 
are regular POTS.



Scottie Arnett wrote:

Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only have
regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have

FXO

lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk


There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They will 
let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around

with.


Scottie Arnett wrote:

Hey All,

I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can 
anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS 
lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card? 
Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little 
about it. TIA.


Sincerely,
Scottie Arnett
President
Info-ed, Inc.
615-699-3049
931-243-2101

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:

11/21/2007

10:01 AM
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check 
out www.info-ed.com for information.



--
--
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/




--

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761



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

2007-11-21 Thread Travis Johnson




Hi,

I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going
to re-cap:

We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because
that is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about
70% of the p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already
had in place and is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that
should take care of 99% of the problems... because any network should
be able to handle what little p2p is left. I am also capping each sub
at the CPE, so overall I am fairly well protected from a single (or
small group) of p2p users affecting anything seriously.

Travis
Microserv

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

  You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1
P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in
about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P
uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a
tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of
that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down
loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the
flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...
Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.

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 George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Come on, you guys that sell "slow" broadband generaly don't have too 
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 
and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 
going to be very noticable.
Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 
happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.





Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Hi,


  
If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
  
  
traffic, you have bigger issues. :)

Travis
Microserv


  
  


  
  
George Rogato wrote:


  How do you cap the encrypted stuff?


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
Hi,

First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 
but
otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 
based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 
this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 
they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.

The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 
competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 
connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 
caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 
for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 
usage, but we allow "reasonable" usage).

Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:


  I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 
of
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 
various offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 
rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price "a", 
want a higher something in your package, it's price "b". Want 
something different, then it's price "c".

The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.




Mark Nash wrote:
  
  
This is a good debate.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
for the
last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 
$$$ off
of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 
this content
proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper 
per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to 
lower the
cost of bandwidth.

However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're 
not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service 
anymore to folks who desperately want it.  With more and more apps 
providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by 
going
with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting 
our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still 
say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for 
heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for 
an ISP.  Bandwidth shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If 

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long.  But more
and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will
soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George,
Comcast, etc ARE limiting it.  We cannot keep trying to control the
application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where
it goes to.  That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent
customer Service... for a price that is.   
 
 
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 Travis Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Hi,

I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to
re-cap:

We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because that
is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about 70% of the
p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already had in place and
is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that should take care of 99%
of the problems... because any network should be able to handle what little
p2p is left. I am also capping each sub at the CPE, so overall I am fairly
well protected from a single (or small group) of p2p users affecting
anything seriously.

Travis
Microserv

CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 

You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1

P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in

about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P

uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per

packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a

tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of

that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down

loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the

flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...

Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.



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 George Rogato

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC





Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 

much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 

and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 

going to be very noticable.

Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 

happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.











Travis Johnson wrote:

  

Hi,





  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

  

traffic, you have bigger issues. :)



Travis

Microserv











  

George Rogato wrote:



How do you cap the encrypted stuff?





Travis Johnson wrote:

  

Hi,



First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 

but

otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 

based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 

this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 

they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.



The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY

else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 

competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 

connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 

caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 

for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 

usage, but we allow reasonable usage).



Travis

Microserv



George Rogato wrote:



I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 

of

traffic and rate limit them.

And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 

various offerings we can provide.

Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 

rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 

want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 

something different, then it's price c.



The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.









Mark Nash wrote:

  

This is a good debate.



What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind

for the

last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make 

$$$ off

of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a

connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as 

this content

proliferates through our networks? 

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

I gave up on the worry about how to protect for the future stuff long 
ago... 5 years ago there was no such thing as p2p. Six years ago there 
were no viruses/worms/etc. that would affect an AP like today. A few 
years from now there will be another new thing that we will be dealing 
with, and there will be many suitable solutions to this p2p issue we see 
today.


Deal with today's issues today. Plan for tomorrow's issues tomorrow. :)

Travis
Microserv

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long.  But more
and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will
soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George,
Comcast, etc ARE limiting it.  We cannot keep trying to control the
application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where
it goes to.  That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent
customer Service... for a price that is.   
 
 
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 Travis Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


Hi,

I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to
re-cap:

We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because that
is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about 70% of the
p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already had in place and
is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that should take care of 99%
of the problems... because any network should be able to handle what little
p2p is left. I am also capping each sub at the CPE, so overall I am fairly
well protected from a single (or small group) of p2p users affecting
anything seriously.

Travis
Microserv

CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 


You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.  1

P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in

about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P

uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per

packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on a

tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of

that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down

loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the

flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah, right...

Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.



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 George Rogato

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC





Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too 

much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs 

and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is 


going to be very noticable.

Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what 


happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.











Travis Johnson wrote:

  


Hi,






  If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p

  


traffic, you have bigger issues. :)



Travis

Microserv












  


George Rogato wrote:




How do you cap the encrypted stuff?





Travis Johnson wrote:

  


Hi,



First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, 


but

otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections 

based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of 

this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If 


they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.



The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY

else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless 

competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their 

connection, they will start switching to something that does not have 

caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need 

for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth 


usage, but we allow reasonable usage).



Travis

Microserv



George Rogato wrote:



I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types 


of

traffic and rate limit them.

And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of 


various offerings we can provide.

Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic 

rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, 

want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want 



Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-21 Thread Sam Tetherow
Which is why I feel that trying to address the issue as a P2P issue is 
wrong, the issue is not what the traffic is, it is what the traffic is 
doing to your network. If you address that issue, then encryption is 
pointless. Limit large connection counts, implement burstable bandwidth, 
add a transfer cap.


Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long.  But more
and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will
soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George,
Comcast, etc ARE limiting it.  We cannot keep trying to control the
application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where
it goes to.  That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent
customer Service... for a price that is.   
 
 
Chuck Profito

209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California


  





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] Fw: Tower Sway

2007-11-21 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

Holy error rates Batman!

LOL, even *I* know this isn't the way to build a tower for all of those big 
dishes.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Kris Kirby 

To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Tower Sway




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP-5fdYQ5Y

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  
But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility.
--rly 





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/