Re: [WISPA] Maxrad adjustable sector antennas
Where are you buying them? Jayson Baker wrote: 2GHz or 5GHz? We used the 5GHz adjustable's years ago, and their performance was awesome. Just bought some of the 2GHz version to do some testing with. Not sure on those yet. Jayson On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they really work well. Randy -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc work: 435-773-6071 email: rco...@infowest.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby 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] Maxrad adjustable sector antennas
2GHz or 5GHz? We used the 5GHz adjustable's years ago, and their performance was awesome. Just bought some of the 2GHz version to do some testing with. Not sure on those yet. Jayson On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: > Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I > have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they > really work well. > > Randy > > -- > Randy Cosby > Vice President > InfoWest, Inc > > work: 435-773-6071 > email: rco...@infowest.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby > > > > > > 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] Net Neutrality
I must be missing something. What and how are ISP's blocking or possibly blocking that may infringe on free speech? Certainly not PTP traffic. -RickG On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:14 PM, John Vogel wrote: > Jack, > > I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much > addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. > I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are > reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that > free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's > upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think > free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, > nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some > argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I > think the issues have been conflated. > > The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the > News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech > issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable > companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. > are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there > any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. > P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes > presented as such. > > The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not > inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS" > (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional > guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged > with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional > right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction > you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. > Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate > IMNSHO. :) > > As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be > similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio > 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by > Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the > HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since > then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC > decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I > cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it > uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of > free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. > > I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to > consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an > advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, > not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. > > Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at > you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT. > > John > * > Jack Unger wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have >> conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue >> of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. >> >> On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing >> bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they >> contract for and not any more than what they contract for. >> >> On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the >> "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they >> won't pass. >> >> If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need >> to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or >> you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or >> receive it from. >> >> I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? >> >> Respectfully, >> >> jack >> >> >> John Vogel wrote: >>> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who >>> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If >>> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, >>> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high >>> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as >>> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their >>> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done >>> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type >>> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been >>> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of >>> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) >>> >>> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I >>> reserve the right
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Jack, I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I think the issues have been conflated. The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes presented as such. The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS" (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate IMNSHO. :) As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT. John * Jack Unger wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have > conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue > of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. > > On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing > bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they > contract for and not any more than what they contract for. > > On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the > "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they > won't pass. > > If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need > to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or > you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or > receive it from. > > I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? > > Respectfully, > > jack > > > John Vogel wrote: >> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who >> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If >> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, >> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high >> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as >> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their >> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done >> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type >> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been >> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of >> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) >> >> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I >> reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to >> converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything >> they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, >> (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, >> and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are >> commu
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I've always limited by mb/s... Looks like I'll be adding total connections and packets per sec limiting as well. I don't care where you go or what you do... But overselling bandwidth is the only way people in rural areas currently can afford high speed. ps Jack Unger wrote: Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!". Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Ne
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Hi John, Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they contract for and not any more than what they contract for. On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they won't pass. If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or receive it from. I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? Respectfully, jack John Vogel wrote: Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!". Mike Hammett wrote: What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: A
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate is somewhat disingenuous. There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. John Jack Unger wrote: > The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any > Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to > say. > > The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as > most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just > one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to > another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and > shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you > going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL > ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. > > Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I > don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free > Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet > service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are > saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my > freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free > Speech right now!!!". > > > > Mike Hammett wrote: > >> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what >> to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way >> ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or >> start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the >> first place. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Jack Unger >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> >> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the >> laws and make the rules. >> >> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier >> from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't >> like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN >> is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". >> >> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to >> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your >> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like >> about that? >> >> >> Josh Luthman wrote: >> Who's definition of unreasonable... >> >> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: >> The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. >> Reasonable network management policies are allowed. >> >> Robert West wrote: >> Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the >> price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >> explained how it's net neutral. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Blair Davis >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> >> >> It's back >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> --
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Mike Hammett wrote: Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under the First Amendment. Fat chance. Free speech protections are exactly that - free speech protections. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects you against the Government but I submit that if your ISP cuts you off from the Internet because they don't like your politics then your Free Speech has been restricted and that's why a rule is necessary to be sure your ISP can't cut you off not because of how much bandwidth you are using (they can slow you down to the level that you signed up for) but simply because of your opinions or what (legal) website you visit. I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start ISP C (or B if no one else is there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else or do it on your own. That's just not practical for many people, as I pointed out. They often can't go elsewhere and most people can't "start their own". You don't have the right to say whatever at zero cost (nor the right to an audience), just the right to say whatever. You can get wholesale satellite access anywhere in the world (host county regulations withstanding). There's your right to say what you want. You just have to weigh your desire to say it against the cost of doing so. And if the satellite company doesn't like it because your politics are different from their politics, now where are you going to go??? Besides, WE are the ISPs. I see ZERO possible way it benefits us at all. Not only does it force us to not filter, but it removes the business case of an ISP (or service) that doesn't filter. Since by law then no ISP could filter, there wouldn't be an advantage. Filtering for bandwidth is perfectly OK and any ISP that isn't already going that is WY behind the curve. But if you filter for bandwidth (as you should be doing already) then you can not filter just because you don't like what somebody is doing with the legal bandwidth that you agreed to sell them. You can restrict their bandwidth to the agreed-level (and you should) but if you cut me off because you don't like what I'm saying then that is (or should be) illegal. Maybe I had a $40 connection that had P2P speed limiters or blocking or what have you. I could have a $100 connection that didn't have those or a wholesale connection. Why would anyone want to spend $150/meg for unrestricted bandwidth instead of $40 for 6 megs when the government prevents you from restricting in the first place. I don't follow your point here. DO restrict bandwidth to the contracted level, just don't tell me where on the Internet I can or can not go. Yes, I know there's a clause in there about reasonable protection measures, but the definition of reasonable is purposely vague. If someone doesn't like you, all of a sudden your restriction is unreasonable. "Reasonable" should be defined in the law and (if necessary) interpreted by the courts. I think I said what I meant to say without going too far off topic into politics. I think you did an excellent job of expressing yourself without going off-track into politics. This issue is really bigger than traditional left-right politics. I think this issue is one area (I could be wrong; we'll see...) where the left and the right will agree that they don't want to be silenced by anybody - not by the government and not by telecom or Internet companies. Everybody understands the dangers of censorship and dictatorship where people lose their right to speak freely. I don't think that statement is too "political" either. I think Freedom transcends politics but if I'm wrong then I apologize. I've been pretty quiet lately but when it comes to preserving Freedom (for everyone, left, center and right) I feel I need to speak up and take a stand. I hope you understand. jack - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:07 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order t
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Free speech protections are against the government, not individuals and companies. Speak your mind to your boss, get fired, then try to sue under the First Amendment. Fat chance. I provided for there not being alternatives in my previous message... start ISP C (or B if no one else is there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else or do it on your own. You don't have the right to say whatever at zero cost (nor the right to an audience), just the right to say whatever. You can get wholesale satellite access anywhere in the world (host county regulations withstanding). There's your right to say what you want. You just have to weigh your desire to say it against the cost of doing so. Besides, WE are the ISPs. I see ZERO possible way it benefits us at all. Not only does it force us to not filter, but it removes the business case of an ISP (or service) that doesn't filter. Since by law then no ISP could filter, there wouldn't be an advantage. Maybe I had a $40 connection that had P2P speed limiters or blocking or what have you. I could have a $100 connection that didn't have those or a wholesale connection. Why would anyone want to spend $150/meg for unrestricted bandwidth instead of $40 for 6 megs when the government prevents you from restricting in the first place. Yes, I know there's a clause in there about reasonable protection measures, but the definition of reasonable is purposely vague. If someone doesn't like you, all of a sudden your restriction is unreasonable. I think I said what I meant to say without going too far off topic into politics. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:07 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any > Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to > say. > > The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as > most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just > one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to > another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and > shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you > going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL > ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. > > Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I > don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free > Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet > service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are > saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my > freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free > Speech right now!!!". > > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me >> what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like >> the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find >> ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're >> wanting to in the first place. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Jack Unger >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> >> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write >> the laws and make the rules. >> >> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your >> carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because >> they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf >> or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". >> >> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to >> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your >> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to >> like about that? >> >> >> Josh Luthman wrote: >> Who's definition of unreasonable... >> >> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: >> The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. >> Reasonable network management policies are allowed. >> >> Robert West wrote: >> Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband >> the >> price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >> explained how it's net neutral. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Blair Davis >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> >> >> It's back >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >> >> >>
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
I absolutely agree. The open access stuff really only has meaning for us on fiber where total capacity is functionally unlimited in a new build out. Chuck On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still > available and not already sold to someon else. > > Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless > middle > mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has > been sold > already. > > Example: > Grant winner builds out 300mbps licensed link. Grant winner agrees > to open > access. Grant winner sells 300mbps of capacity to Wholesale partner. > Grant winner no longer has to sell bandwidth to anyone else, its > already all > been sold. Wholesale partner reserves it all, and sells it to subs as > ordered over time. The grant winner itself is subject to the sharing > rules, > but the wholesale partner that capacity was sold to, will not > necessarilly > be subject to sharing. I see so many possibilities for games, to > control > who does and doesn't get access to the bandwidth. > > In our unsubmitted application, we legitimately wanted multiple > wholesale > partners, and pre-defined who we'd sell it to, and pre-allocated > capacity > for that. > I'm not so sure other grant applicants equally embrace the wholesale > open > access principles. In my mind, I think history should be the ruling > factor. > If someone preveiously whoesaled, they are likely to continue > wanting to > wholesale. If they didn;t before, they probably wont want to > afterwords, and > will likely play games. Just my opinion. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Charles Wu" > +20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > > >>> In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million >>> bucks to >>> provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper >>> broadband to the >>> masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper >>> broadband >>> is for their system. >> >> If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of >> their >> funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the >> same >> price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way >> >> 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them >> 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get >> audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, >> and you >> get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) >> >> -Charles >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch >> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM >> To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects >> >> Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't >> really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want >> you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. >> >> For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in >> for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, >> well >> tough. >> >> If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes >> to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale >> access...just "attachment", whatever the heck that means. There just >> seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play >> their >> usual games with this stuff and block the intent. >> >> So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how >> they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the >> provider is willing to and interested in doing so. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: >> >>> Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open >>> their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? >>> >>> Scottie >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: Chuck Bartosch >>> Reply-To: WISPA General List >>> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 >>> There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't think it's a good plan. In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you can find it on line. The only exception is if they
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I feel I should be able to manage my network any way I see fit and if someone doesn't like it move on... I think the larger providers should have that same ability. But, if laws like this continue I'll give my customers an option... I'll let them choose between a "1mb up 1mb down they can do what they want solution" or they can have for the same price my 10mb down 3mb up solution if they agree I get to manage their bandwidth That covers any enforcement from above. Further, if I can't block their torrent traffic or slow it down legally I can fire them as a customer - thats one way to manage the problem and its legal... There is such thing as BAD customers and it often makes sense to get rid of them because they actually cost you money. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Mike Hammett" > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:49 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Jack Unger > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. > > Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". > > If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? > > > Josh Luthman wrote: > Who's definition of unreasonable... > > On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: > The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. > Reasonable network management policies are allowed. > > Robert West wrote: > Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the > price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I > explained how it's net neutral. > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > It's back > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > >
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to say. The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free Speech right now!!!". Mike Hammett wrote: > What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what > to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way > ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or > start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the > first place. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Jack Unger > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the > laws and make the rules. > > Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier > from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't > like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN > is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". > > If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print > it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. > Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about > that? > > > Josh Luthman wrote: > Who's definition of unreasonable... > > On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: > The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. > Reasonable network management policies are allowed. > > Robert West wrote: > Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the > price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I > explained how it's net neutral. > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > It's back > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
The issue is that access to bandwidth can only be sold if it is still available and not already sold to someon else. Open Access is very relevent for fiber networks, but for wireless middle mile grants, it will be very easy to simply say the capacity has been sold already. Example: Grant winner builds out 300mbps licensed link. Grant winner agrees to open access. Grant winner sells 300mbps of capacity to Wholesale partner. Grant winner no longer has to sell bandwidth to anyone else, its already all been sold. Wholesale partner reserves it all, and sells it to subs as ordered over time. The grant winner itself is subject to the sharing rules, but the wholesale partner that capacity was sold to, will not necessarilly be subject to sharing. I see so many possibilities for games, to control who does and doesn't get access to the bandwidth. In our unsubmitted application, we legitimately wanted multiple wholesale partners, and pre-defined who we'd sell it to, and pre-allocated capacity for that. I'm not so sure other grant applicants equally embrace the wholesale open access principles. In my mind, I think history should be the ruling factor. If someone preveiously whoesaled, they are likely to continue wanting to wholesale. If they didn;t before, they probably wont want to afterwords, and will likely play games. Just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > >In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to >>provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the >>masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband >>is for their system. > > If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their > funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same > price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way > > 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them > 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get > audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you > get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) > > -Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM > To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > > Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't > really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want > you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. > > For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in > for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well > tough. > > If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes > to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale > access...just "attachment", whatever the heck that means. There just > seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their > usual games with this stuff and block the intent. > > So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how > they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the > provider is willing to and interested in doing so. > > Chuck > > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > >> Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open >> their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? >> >> Scottie >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: Chuck Bartosch >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 >> >>> There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you >>> don't >>> think it's a good plan. >>> >>> In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that >>> explicitly >>> disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over >>> about >>> individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over >>> anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage >>> area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you >>> can find it on line. >>> >>> The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are >>> instructed >>> to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. >>> >>> Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms >>> about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any >>> form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. >>> >>> It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out >>> what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach >>> you're >>> suggesting as I
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the first place. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Net Neutrality
Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the laws and make the rules. Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like about that? Josh Luthman wrote: Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Yes, if its a licensed spectrum proposal, so can control noise floor, and can design to operate at lower receive sensitivities, yes then my comment does not apply. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > >They either "lie" or they legitimately "dont know what they are doing". > > Or maybe you don't know what is possible with licensed spectrum =) > > For example, in the 2.5 GHz band, there are over 30 6 MHz channels > available (e.g., almost 200 MHz of spectrum) -- we have one customer that > owns/leases almost every channel in their respective market (I believe > they're at 28 or so), and they have the ability to do some really cool > stuff > > -Charles > > > > 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] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
> Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new "cheap stuff" > ones ? The expensive Alvarian VL uses a standard Atheros Chipset. But Alvarion has its own MAC, which is the secret to its more robust offering. > Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik > nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? None of the above. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rubens Kuhl" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi > Answers inline... > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi > wrote: >> My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided >> their own TDD mac. >> Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with >> their >> own proprietary MAC. > > Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new "cheap stuff" > ones ? > >> I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated >> Full >> Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. > > Hummm, a single half-duplex instead of two half-duplex ones like nstreme > dual. > >> This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. > > Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik > nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? > >> The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there >> is >> some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to >> make >> that viable. > > Yes, Ceragon representatives confirm that they are indeed OEM'ing > RAD/Radwin. > >> Outside of that, I cant help. >> >> But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform >> RFC-2544 performance testing ? > > Agilent FrameScope Pro, but looking forward to less expensive tools. > > > Rubens > > > > 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] Maxrad adjustable sector antennas
Anyone have any experience with these? I have a pretty narrow area I have to hit, and the 45 degree, 18dbi gain would be ideal - if they really work well. Randy -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc work: 435-773-6071 email: rco...@infowest.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby 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] Net Neutrality
Who's definition of unreasonable... On 9/19/09, Jack Unger wrote: > The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. > Reasonable network management policies are allowed. > > Robert West wrote: >> Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the >> price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >> explained how it's net neutral. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Blair Davis >> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> >> >> It's back >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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] Need Lightning Arrestor Advice
I've had one of three die on a tower a while back. Few months and still waiting on my RMA number/replacement/acknowledgement of existence. On 9/19/09, Marco Coelho wrote: > I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever. > > I've had one fail in 10 years The factory was amazed and wanted it > back for analysis. They gave me a free one to replace it. > > Marco > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mike wrote: >> I'm not sure which Ethernet surge protection I'd recommend, but >> PolyPhaser does it best, in my opinion, for RF. >> >> At 10:51 PM 9/16/2009, you wrote: >>>Hello all, >>> >>>I am part of a group installing a wireless network in rural Honduras >>>for a growing educational system with a chapter of Engineers Without >>>Borders (http://ewb-usa.org). We are creating a 7 node wireless >>>network spanning a 3 mile radius. Since Honduras is very prone to >>>rain storms and lightning strikes, we need to protect our equipment >>>from the lightning. We plan on doing the following: >>> >>>1) Place an arrestor between the radio and the antenna >>>2) Place an arrestor in the POE injector >>> >>>Some of the following criteria we are thinking: >>> >>>Amount of lightning strikes: One or Many >>>Insertion Loss: Small as possbile >>>Frequency : 2.4-5.8 GHZ >>> >>>When searching the internet, I see many many types of lightning >>>arrestors given my criteria. Does anyone have any recommendations >>>through their experience with lightning arrestors? What do you use? >>> >>>Thanks! >>>James >>> >>> >>> >>>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/ >> > > > > -- > Marco C. Coelho > Argon Technologies Inc. > POB 875 > Greenville, TX 75403-0875 > 903-455-5036 > > > > 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/ > -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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] Net Neutrality
The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. Reasonable network management policies are allowed. Robert West wrote: > Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the > price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I > explained how it's net neutral. > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > It's back > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews > > > > > > > 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/ > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need Lightning Arrestor Advice
I'll second the PolyPhaser. Their RF products rock. No lost radios ever. I've had one fail in 10 years The factory was amazed and wanted it back for analysis. They gave me a free one to replace it. Marco On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Mike wrote: > I'm not sure which Ethernet surge protection I'd recommend, but > PolyPhaser does it best, in my opinion, for RF. > > At 10:51 PM 9/16/2009, you wrote: >>Hello all, >> >>I am part of a group installing a wireless network in rural Honduras >>for a growing educational system with a chapter of Engineers Without >>Borders (http://ewb-usa.org). We are creating a 7 node wireless >>network spanning a 3 mile radius. Since Honduras is very prone to >>rain storms and lightning strikes, we need to protect our equipment >>from the lightning. We plan on doing the following: >> >>1) Place an arrestor between the radio and the antenna >>2) Place an arrestor in the POE injector >> >>Some of the following criteria we are thinking: >> >>Amount of lightning strikes: One or Many >>Insertion Loss: Small as possbile >>Frequency : 2.4-5.8 GHZ >> >>When searching the internet, I see many many types of lightning >>arrestors given my criteria. Does anyone have any recommendations >>through their experience with lightning arrestors? What do you use? >> >>Thanks! >>James >> >> >> >>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/ > -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 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] Net Neutrality
Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband the price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I explained how it's net neutral. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews 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] Net Neutrality
It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews 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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
It depends on what you're buying from them, but the basic answer is "no they do not have to sell at their cost". If you're buying transit, you strike your own deal with the bandwidth supplier. In that sense you're just paying "cost" on the bandwidth. But, they have to determine the transit terms for the application. That will include a profit number for them. But, they have to live with the proposal they make. They can also sell bandwidth, at a predesigned schedule. They make a profit there too, but they have to live with their proposed schedule. That or I missed something big in the NOFA. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 19, 2009, at 10:08 AM, "Robert West" wrote: > Okay, so for the grant they MUST provide the bandwidth for the same > price > they are paying for it??? But are they then able to throw a bunch > of BS > fees on top of it? If they have to provide at the same price, then > it's not > bad but I suspect it will be more cumbersome. > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Charles Wu > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > >> In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million >> bucks to >> provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband >> to the >> masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper >> broadband >> is for their system. > > If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their > funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the > same > price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way > > 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them > 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get > audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, > and you > get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) > > -Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM > To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects > > Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't > really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want 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] RAD/Radwin x Wi-Fi
Answers inline... On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > My understanding was they were using standard Wifi Chipsets, but provided > their own TDD mac. > Similar to the concept of Alvarion VL, that uses Atheros chipset, with their > own proprietary MAC. Do you mean the traditional Alvarion VL hardware or the new "cheap stuff" ones ? > I'm pretty sure RadWin was the first to do this to accomplish immulated Full > Duplex, with a single half-duplex designed chipset. Hummm, a single half-duplex instead of two half-duplex ones like nstreme dual. > This was way before, all the recent trend SoftwareTDD packages. Which do you think is closer to the RadWin design: Karlnet, Mikrotik nstreme, Ubiquiti AirMax or none of the above ? > The units are also the same as the equivellent Ceragon models. So there is > some intellectual property that was licensed or oem'ed to the other, to make > that viable. Yes, Ceragon representatives confirm that they are indeed OEM'ing RAD/Radwin. > Outside of that, I cant help. > > But thought I'd ask. What testing tools are you using to perform > RFC-2544 performance testing ? Agilent FrameScope Pro, but looking forward to less expensive tools. Rubens 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] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-09-19-internet-rules-fcc_N.htm?csp=34 On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Robert West wrote: > Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. > > Thanks! > > Robert West > > > > > 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] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West 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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
Okay, so for the grant they MUST provide the bandwidth for the same price they are paying for it??? But are they then able to throw a bunch of BS fees on top of it? If they have to provide at the same price, then it's not bad but I suspect it will be more cumbersome. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects >In our case, our competitor applied for a shade under a million bucks to >provide middle mile into the area, as in to bring cheaper broadband to the >masses. That doesn't sound like it will benefit us, the cheaper broadband >is for their system. If it's a middle mile application, they would be in violation of their funding contract if they bandwidth wasn't available to you for the same price that they're buying it for -- IMO, you would win either way 1. You get access to cheap bandwidth for the same price as them 2. They deny you access, you report them to the government, they get audited, shut down, thrown in jail, you have one less competitor, and you get to buy their system for pennies on the dollar =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:28 PM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on. For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well tough. If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale access...just "attachment", whatever the heck that means. There just seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their usual games with this stuff and block the intent. So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the provider is willing to and interested in doing so. Chuck On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: > Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open > their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule? > > Scottie > > -- Original Message -- > From: Chuck Bartosch > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400 > >> There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you >> don't >> think it's a good plan. >> >> In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that >> explicitly >> disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over >> about >> individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over >> anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage >> area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you >> can find it on line. >> >> The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are >> instructed >> to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this. >> >> Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms >> about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any >> form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's. >> >> It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out >> what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach >> you're >> suggesting as I understood the circular. >> >> Chuck >> >> On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> >>> Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan. >>> The >>> NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer >>> money >>> optimally wisely and benefit the public, and >>> adhere to the NOFA rules. If you think you can do a better plan, >>> but didn;t >>> have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get >>> approved >>> if its less good? >>> And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA >>> what we >>> think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the >>> public that >>> has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects. >>> >>> I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that >>> targeted >>> truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider >>> infrastructure. I plan to support those projects. >>> For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that >>> would >>> directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets. I >>> plan to >>> protest that 20%. Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre- >>> existing >>> providers or called t
