Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Robert, Being pro-active can be good when it's constructive. WISPA's position needs to be developed through a discussion process otherwise it's just the position of one person and may not be representative of the position of a majority of WISPA members however it appears that Julius Genachowski must have been reading your mind because today he announced a brand new website called Open Internet.gov www.openinternet.gov. You could go there as an individual and start contributing your constructive suggestions immediately. jack Robert West wrote: But why wait for the FCC? Why not be pro-active? We already know our concerns and we could at least list the ways we would like to see this type of thing designed. To just react to something isn't being the leader. We should be at the front of this thing. At least that's what I feel I should do myself. The entire idea had to be started by someone, why not jump in and be part of it? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality David, Regarding WISPA plans to adopt any official position on Network Neutrality...that process is always active but it does have a number of steps. 1. We've got to see what rules the FCC actually proposes. 2. We need to get general agreement (probably a majority view since getting complete agreement between all independent-thinking WISPA members is a darn near impossibility) on what WISPA's official position should be. 3. We need to either a) wait for the FCC to ask for opinions or (if our beliefs are compelling enough) b) go to the FCC and make an Ex Parte presentation to selected FCC employees to explain our position and what we recommend the FCC do. 4. Wait and see what the FCC does after we express our opinion or make our presenation and then decide if further action on our part is needed. Steps 1 and 2 (above) are already in play. Watching the FCC's proposals and listening to WISPA member opinions and ideas is happening as we participate in this discussion. Additional work will be done by WISPA's FCC Committee to refine WISPA's position and either write it up (Step 3) or prepare an Ex Parte presentation. Funding to prepare either a written or an in-person FCC presentation comes from the dues of WISPA members therefore it would be beneficial if those participating in this discussion who are not WISPA members would choose to do the right thing and become WISPA members. As the Chair of WISPA's FCC Committee, I will be participating in the preparation of any FCC Comments that WISPA officially makes. While I appreciate all input, I'm obligated to give more weight to the views of WISPA members compared to the views of those who are not yet WISPA members. jack David E. Smith wrote: Curtis Maurand wrote: I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're saying (or at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the peanut gallery). Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official position on this? I'm not saying net neutrality is bad, because I adore the principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't pass some overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger operators, that makes it difficult or impossible for smaller outfits (like mine!) to keep things running smoothly. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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] Facebook fan page
It's too bad the two of you don't understand the power of social networking and feel the need to bash the rest of us in our marketing efforts. This is why so many people leave these lists. Some of us are trying to help each other and the rest are just making snide comments. So sad. Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/64096486706?ref=tsor follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Robert West wrote: I can host it along side my Amish Personal Ads Dating site. Another money making idea! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page I'd sign up for that. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: I should start an anti-social networking site where people could be my enemy. What do you think? A money maker??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:22 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page That would be great. However, I read that it's 1000 fans to get your own URL. I am hoping I was wrong! I am only in the teens : ( Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Acces s-LLC/640964%0A86706?ref=ts or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Dylan Bouterse wrote: I'm thinking there should be a list on the WISPA page for it's member's Facebook fan pages (assuming you're in on the social marketing train)? Thoughts? Apparently if you have more than 100 fans you can get a custom URL from Facebook. We are just over 60 fans. Can I get some help from our WISPA community? Dylan PowerOne/airPowered http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tavares-FL/airPowered/168580151456?ref=nf 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! 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] Facebook fan page
Uh.. I do not recall making any snide comments or any comments whatsoever against or for social networking. What I actually did was make a JOKE about ANTI-SOCIAL networking. Please explain my non-understanding of social networking and also how I have bashed. I see no bashing being performed on this side yet I feel some symptoms of being the recipient of some of this reported bashing activity. Hm.. I am sorry that you are so sad. Fin. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page It's too bad the two of you don't understand the power of social networking and feel the need to bash the rest of us in our marketing efforts. This is why so many people leave these lists. Some of us are trying to help each other and the rest are just making snide comments. So sad. Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tsor follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Robert West wrote: I can host it along side my Amish Personal Ads Dating site. Another money making idea! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page I'd sign up for that. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: I should start an anti-social networking site where people could be my enemy. What do you think? A money maker??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:22 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page That would be great. However, I read that it's 1000 fans to get your own URL. I am hoping I was wrong! I am only in the teens : ( Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Acces s-LLC/640964%0A86706?ref=ts or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Dylan Bouterse wrote: I'm thinking there should be a list on the WISPA page for it's member's Facebook fan pages (assuming you're in on the social marketing train)? Thoughts? Apparently if you have more than 100 fans you can get a custom URL from Facebook. We are just over 60 fans. Can I get some help from our WISPA community? Dylan PowerOne/airPowered http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tavares-FL/airPowered/168580151456?ref=nf 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! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as bad as the media makes it out to be. --Curtis Mike Hammett wrote: Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access providers. What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so than in past commissions. Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged in Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between legislative and FCC committees. The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is pointing to the FCC to make rules. We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might be able to request participation in them? For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
yes. Registration Service Provided By: ABOVE.COM, INC. Contact: +613.95897946 Domain Name: SUPERHOTSTUFF.COM Registrant: Above.com Domain Privacy 8 East concourse Beaumaris VIC 3193 AU hostmas...@above.com Tel. +61.395897946 Fax. Robert West wrote: Was a joke. But some who need porn in the morning.. that's just weird. But again, who am I to judge?! (Is there really a superhotstoffhere.com) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Some of us don't need porn every morning and those that do won't admit nor complain about it. Saves us bandwidth. 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Why do you put superhotstuffhere.com as 8? Some of us count on that every morning. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not destination. All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1 All DNS priority 2 All HTTP priority 4 etc... WE DO NOT want cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1 google.com yahoo.com priority 2 whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Tom, Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is unfounded and not likely to happen. In the end, it misses the point that the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has very little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your network. The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much content is peer-generated these days). Want proof? Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people care that your service is working :). Do it for a week and see how many customers you retain. Repeat for any of the other apps that your customers use. The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps are Internet. As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL, etc... they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv, Prodigy, etc... for a time). It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly chose the open Internet. Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable than the guys that chose to do private networks :) Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the nation is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles, in the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or unlicensed spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize). If they want to run private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to build out solely private networks. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access providers. What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so than in past commissions. Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged in Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between legislative and FCC committees. The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is pointing to the FCC to make rules. We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might be able to request participation in them? For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed Rule making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for proposed rules to never get to rule making stage. (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept all togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic views realistic in a way not to harm ISP. I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we all togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve cable TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view. But the risk there is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly like providers, and we risk loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more support than providers do. The risk is that protecting the majority of consumers (cable and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater benefit than protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market share by small ISPs and WISPs). We need to remind the government that the open Internet originally was a network paid for by the government. In Today's Internet, providers are required to pay for building access for
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Then don't run a business that is essential a utility. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business, government. BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up with it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the right to free speech. 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of free speech. All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for example Service and Content Provider A is blocking the services of Content Provider B. To me, this is a Restraint of Trade issue rather than a political Free Speech issue but it still falls under the heading of Content and is therefore addressed by NN. Should NN address the commercial side of Content?? Yes, I think it's appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be allowed to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content provider who is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every service provider should be required to carry the content of every other content or service provider equally, without restriction AS
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the right to free speech. 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of free speech. All they focus on is the commercial side of
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Mike, To clarify what I meant here: If you want to run a business without any government interference, that is fine and understandable. But, considering that for the past century, telecommunications and utilities have been some of the most heavily regulated industries in the US (and around the world), you should have known when you where getting into the ISP game that you'd be subject to this sort of interference by the government. The only reason why independent WISPs get as little regulation as they do is that they, by and large, aren't all that successful and don't pop up very prominently on the radar This isn't an industry for libertarians. Telecommunications companies, by necessity, leverage too much public right of way (whether in terms of pole attachments or spectrum or otherwise) for the government to say you're taking public assets, but what the hell, do whatever you want to maximize your profits at the expense of the public). Telecommunication providers are guests on public right of ways, and the government has every right to put restrictions to ensure that their guests operate with some vague pretension of public interest. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com wrote: Then don't run a business that is essential a utility. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business, government. BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up with it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the
Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page
Robert, I enjoy your humor while some may not understand it. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Uh.. I do not recall making any snide comments or any comments whatsoever against or for social networking. What I actually did was make a JOKE about ANTI-SOCIAL networking. Please explain my non-understanding of social networking and also how I have bashed. I see no bashing being performed on this side yet I feel some symptoms of being the recipient of some of this reported bashing activity. Hm.. I am sorry that you are so sad. Fin. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page It's too bad the two of you don't understand the power of social networking and feel the need to bash the rest of us in our marketing efforts. This is why so many people leave these lists. Some of us are trying to help each other and the rest are just making snide comments. So sad. Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tsor follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Robert West wrote: I can host it along side my Amish Personal Ads Dating site. Another money making idea! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page I'd sign up for that. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: I should start an anti-social networking site where people could be my enemy. What do you think? A money maker??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:22 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page That would be great. However, I read that it's 1000 fans to get your own URL. I am hoping I was wrong! I am only in the teens : ( Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Acces s-LLC/640964%0A86706?ref=ts or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Dylan Bouterse wrote: I'm thinking there should be a list on the WISPA page for it's member's Facebook fan pages (assuming you're in on the social marketing train)? Thoughts? Apparently if you have more than 100 fans you can get a custom URL from Facebook. We are just over 60 fans. Can I get some help from our WISPA community? Dylan PowerOne/airPowered http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tavares-FL/airPowered/168580151456?ref=nf 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! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List:
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
something about salvia leaves. some sort of euphoric mind altering substance. --C Robert West wrote: I'm not looking. I will assume the site promotes super efficient heating devices. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality yes. Registration Service Provided By: ABOVE.COM, INC. Contact: +613.95897946 Domain Name: SUPERHOTSTUFF.COM Registrant: Above.com Domain Privacy 8 East concourse Beaumaris VIC 3193 AU hostmas...@above.com Tel. +61.395897946 Fax. Robert West wrote: Was a joke. But some who need porn in the morning.. that's just weird. But again, who am I to judge?! (Is there really a superhotstoffhere.com) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Some of us don't need porn every morning and those that do won't admit nor complain about it. Saves us bandwidth. 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Why do you put superhotstuffhere.com as 8? Some of us count on that every morning. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not destination. All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1 All DNS priority 2 All HTTP priority 4 etc... WE DO NOT want cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1 google.com yahoo.com priority 2 whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1)
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
I'll pass. I have enough mind altering substances called children and a wife. Not euphoric by any means but one can't have everything. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality something about salvia leaves. some sort of euphoric mind altering substance. --C Robert West wrote: I'm not looking. I will assume the site promotes super efficient heating devices. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality yes. Registration Service Provided By: ABOVE.COM, INC. Contact: +613.95897946 Domain Name: SUPERHOTSTUFF.COM Registrant: Above.com Domain Privacy 8 East concourse Beaumaris VIC 3193 AU hostmas...@above.com Tel. +61.395897946 Fax. Robert West wrote: Was a joke. But some who need porn in the morning.. that's just weird. But again, who am I to judge?! (Is there really a superhotstoffhere.com) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Some of us don't need porn every morning and those that do won't admit nor complain about it. Saves us bandwidth. 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Why do you put superhotstuffhere.com as 8? Some of us count on that every morning. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not destination. All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1 All DNS priority 2 All HTTP priority 4 etc... WE DO NOT want cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1 google.com yahoo.com priority 2 whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8 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 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
We do not allow the running of servers in our TOS, so I guess we are safe with torrents? Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:47:30 -0400 Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as bad as the media makes it out to be. --Curtis Mike Hammett wrote: Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access providers. What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers. There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so than in past commissions. Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page
Believe it or not, I used to do stand up in the Cleveland and Columbus areas back in the 90's and then again about 5 years ago due to age allowing me to forget how much it sucks. (I remembered quick enough during my rant on the Bible Factory Outlet.. Half the room falling off their chairs laughing and the other half silent.) So I'm used to some not getting it or, okay, MOST probably dont get it! (I admit this freely) This all explains my current day job. I still tend to share my twisted and convoluted thoughts to those who are unlucky enough to be near. Thanks for the good feelings though. It's appreciated. Just remember to tip your wait staff, they do a hard job keeping you people drunk and unaware that I suck. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page Robert, I enjoy your humor while some may not understand it. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Uh.. I do not recall making any snide comments or any comments whatsoever against or for social networking. What I actually did was make a JOKE about ANTI-SOCIAL networking. Please explain my non-understanding of social networking and also how I have bashed. I see no bashing being performed on this side yet I feel some symptoms of being the recipient of some of this reported bashing activity. Hm.. I am sorry that you are so sad. Fin. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page It's too bad the two of you don't understand the power of social networking and feel the need to bash the rest of us in our marketing efforts. This is why so many people leave these lists. Some of us are trying to help each other and the rest are just making snide comments. So sad. Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tsor follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Robert West wrote: I can host it along side my Amish Personal Ads Dating site. Another money making idea! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page I'd sign up for that. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: I should start an anti-social networking site where people could be my enemy. What do you think? A money maker??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Martha Huizenga Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:22 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: Re: [WISPA] Facebook fan page That would be great. However, I read that it's 1000 fans to get your own URL. I am hoping I was wrong! I am only in the teens : ( Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet!/**/ Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Access-LLC/640964 86706?ref=tshttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Washington-DC/DC-Acces s-LLC/640964%0A86706?ref=ts or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* Dylan Bouterse wrote: I'm thinking there should be a list on the WISPA page for it's member's Facebook fan pages (assuming you're in on the social marketing train)? Thoughts? Apparently if you have more than 100 fans you can get a custom URL from Facebook. We are just over 60 fans. Can I get some help from our WISPA community? Dylan PowerOne/airPowered http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tavares-FL/airPowered/168580151456?ref=nf 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!
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees! Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400 Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP. Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) Content. Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly. Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech. 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep Republicans
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as bad as the media makes it out to be. --Curtis Mike Hammett wrote: Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html We need to realize and seperate two things... 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an open
[WISPA] license for amplifier?
I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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
Absolutely true. With HTTP, someone hits a page and then it stops. They sit reading the page. With the torrents, it's a constant stream and not just down but up as well. If you were to go out running and not stop to take a break, you'd be tired pretty quick. But run just a bit, sit for a bit, run for a bit, sit for a bit.. that's pretty much HTTP. Unless of course you're downloading a file but even that won't take the 3 hours or so some torrents take or the added upload stream. We all pretty much design ratios in the bandwidth and it doesn't take many torrent users to suck it all up and throw your ratio right in the toilet. They set their connection limit high and now we have 50 or more users coming INTO your network to connect with this customer, grab a packet and take it back out and the customer connecting to just as many themselves. Most had designed with sanity but the uses change daily. Who would have designed a network where the users max their bandwidth 100% of the time in both upstream and downstream? Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees! Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400 Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
That was exactly my point. You're not bringing the T1 down to it's knees, you're bringing the router down to its knees. The solution is a combination of either getting better routers and/or NOT doing any operations on layer 4 or above. If you are strictly switching / routing (and not natting, shaping, blocking, doing access lists, or anything else that involves anything above layers 2/3), then the # of connections is irrelevant. PPS can matter, but typically the problems with PPS are because you're having the CPU operate on EACH and EVERY packet. Most routers can do amazing throughput if you actually only use them like routers and don't have them do anything above layer 3. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote: If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees! Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400 Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU licensed open source)? There lies the big question. I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. IMHO --Curtis Jerry Richardson wrote: I can't agree more. Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it all. Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that fight in court every time. We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered growth. I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive and be fair. Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi John, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as bad as the media makes it out to be. --Curtis Mike Hammett wrote: Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell DT, PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and thriving Internet. The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the
Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier?
Unlicensed freqs don't require a license however you can not legally add an amplifier to a system (in this case, your 5 GHz backhaul) that was not originally certified with the amplifier that you want to use. Hams, who are licensed and who share some frequencies with unlicensed operators do not need an additional license to legally use an amplifier. To avoid mis-use and illegal use of ham amplifiers by unlicensed operators, legitimate sellers of ham amplifiers (and indeed, any amplifier) normally request that you show proof that you are a ham in order to purchase an amplifier. Unfortunately for our industry: 1. 95% of the WISPs who use external amplifiers are doing so illegally. 2. 95% of the companies who sell external amplifiers to WISPs are skating on thin ice. RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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] Net Neutrality
It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. 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] Net Neutrality
We measure and record each subscriber's usage (easy to do with Mikrotik HotSpot functionality and RADIUS accounting data). Our TOS has an Excessive Usage policy which defines excessive usage as six times the average. Each month, our system calculates the average and excessive and sends an e-mail to customers over the excessive usage limit, asking them to modify/reduce their use or upgrade to a higher plan (we calculate average and excessive use separately for each plan type). Any subscriber who hits the excessive use limit three months in a row receives a nastygram e-mail from us forcing them to upgrade or cancel. This tactic works very well for us. Less than 1% hit the limit each month and an even smaller percentage hit it three months in a row. Most subscribers do upgrade or modify their behavior. Often, its parents who don't know their kids are generating so much traffic. We don't do any limiting of applications or services at layer 3 or above. Just basic bandwidth limiting based on their chosen service plan. Its not worth the time and energy chasing specific applications. The problem isn't torrent. The problem is excessive use and placing an extraordinary burden on the network. The excessive use could be caused by Netflix, YouTube, or any number of other non-torrent applications. In this way, we measure and address the real problem -- excessive use -- and have no issues with being net neutral. Dave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:11 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
$1300 for 6 meg here. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:22:23 -0400 $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html 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] Net Neutrality
And adding a priority to certain traffic would still be acceptable since it would only be in force if that traffic is being used, such as VOIP and video and is there only to enhance and ensure the quality of that particular traffic that the customer themselves chose to use. Yes? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
$1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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
sigh...I guess we need to re-visit the three factors that play into what bandwidth will cost: (1) Location (2) Location (3) Location Any questions? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1300 for 6 meg here. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:22:23 -0400 $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html 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] Net Neutrality
That's Time Warner fiber with 15 public IPs. I totally acknowledge how lucky we are to have such a rate here. We are actually to have some cheaper fiber coming into the area which I'll try to snag as a secondary access or maybe even primary and dump the snail pace DSL. I will not gloat, I feel for anyone with expensive broadband. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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
You doing Time Warner as a provider as well? We are in an old Adelphia area and they had to install an entire new network which is probably why the cost is lower. That and we're on the edge of Appalachia, they probably get some sort of incentive to provide cheaper in this area. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] Net Neutrality
Robert - I too am using TWC fiber. They let me get as many public IPs as I want, though. Have you tried to called them up and filled out their public IP form for more? 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: That's Time Warner fiber with 15 public IPs. I totally acknowledge how lucky we are to have such a rate here. We are actually to have some cheaper fiber coming into the area which I'll try to snag as a secondary access or maybe even primary and dump the snail pace DSL. I will not gloat, I feel for anyone with expensive broadband. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] Net Neutrality
Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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
Okay. Who are these IT experts? I'll offer them a deal. They provide my bandwidth and I'll be generous and pay them a nice percentage over their price for that virtually nothing cost access. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
Tier 1 is fairly meaningless. In many cases, tier 2 bandwidth is better quality than tier 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network though I'm not sure how current that is. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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
Indeed. Where I am, T1s are $500 and T3s are $7k. I move 60 miles and I can get 100 megs at $4.50/meg on a month to month contract, and there could be lower. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality sigh...I guess we need to re-visit the three factors that play into what bandwidth will cost: (1) Location (2) Location (3) Location Any questions? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1300 for 6 meg here. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:22:23 -0400 $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html 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/ 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] license for amplifier?
Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] Net Neutrality
Ah! Now that's cool! They charge me $15.00 for more IP's but will go to 10 bucks if I buy a block of 50. I don't because for one, I'm cheap and another is because I'm cheap. As in, we don't charge that much. If someone wants one we'll just pass the cost on to them. I have a hotel I take care of way out in St. Marys, near Wapakoneta, that we have just regular copper going to and the salesman threw a bunch of public IPs in to try to seal the deal, I suppose only I kept telling him I only need 2, one for the router and one for the camera system. So they have 15 public ip's and no, Time Warner says I can't use them on any other modem or router. Whatever. Giving them out like that, in my case, is no wonder why the IP pools is almost dried up. Ask around, maybe they have the cheaper rate there as well and the salesman is hosing you and making himself feel better with the unlimited IP's. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Robert - I too am using TWC fiber. They let me get as many public IPs as I want, though. Have you tried to called them up and filled out their public IP form for more? 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: That's Time Warner fiber with 15 public IPs. I totally acknowledge how lucky we are to have such a rate here. We are actually to have some cheaper fiber coming into the area which I'll try to snag as a secondary access or maybe even primary and dump the snail pace DSL. I will not gloat, I feel for anyone with expensive broadband. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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] license for amplifier?
Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTechhttp://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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
You can hit St. Mary's? How can you hit the Best Value Inn there? It's across the street from the Ford dealership. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Ah! Now that's cool! They charge me $15.00 for more IP's but will go to 10 bucks if I buy a block of 50. I don't because for one, I'm cheap and another is because I'm cheap. As in, we don't charge that much. If someone wants one we'll just pass the cost on to them. I have a hotel I take care of way out in St. Marys, near Wapakoneta, that we have just regular copper going to and the salesman threw a bunch of public IPs in to try to seal the deal, I suppose only I kept telling him I only need 2, one for the router and one for the camera system. So they have 15 public ip's and no, Time Warner says I can't use them on any other modem or router. Whatever. Giving them out like that, in my case, is no wonder why the IP pools is almost dried up. Ask around, maybe they have the cheaper rate there as well and the salesman is hosing you and making himself feel better with the unlimited IP's. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Robert - I too am using TWC fiber. They let me get as many public IPs as I want, though. Have you tried to called them up and filled out their public IP form for more? 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: That's Time Warner fiber with 15 public IPs. I totally acknowledge how lucky we are to have such a rate here. We are actually to have some cheaper fiber coming into the area which I'll try to snag as a secondary access or maybe even primary and dump the snail pace DSL. I will not gloat, I feel for anyone with expensive broadband. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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] license for amplifier?
WOW! L-Com++! Usually you hear lots of banter on these sites about so and so vendor is selling big time illegal stuff but this time.. I guess not! Starting to feel like the local feed store not selling grandma the industrial pesticide because it is just not legal or sane! I like this, maybe I will start to look at the 15-20 catalogs a month they send me! ryan On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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
Agreed, we use this fact as a selling point against the large LECs. ATT is great, but they can break too. If that's all you got then you're down for the count. In comparison we (and many other smaller players like us) aggregate multiple Tier1 carriers so that our customers realize those benefits. If and when one of our Tier1 upstream providers has a problem our clients largely never see it. Traffic simply adjusts and works around the problem until they get it fixed. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Tier 1 is fairly meaningless. In many cases, tier 2 bandwidth is better quality than tier 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network though I'm not sure how current that is. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] license for amplifier?
I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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] license for amplifier?
So, you cant legally make up for cable loss with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Unlicensed freqs don't require a license however you can not legally add an amplifier to a system (in this case, your 5 GHz backhaul) that was not originally certified with the amplifier that you want to use. Hams, who are licensed and who share some frequencies with unlicensed operators do not need an additional license to legally use an amplifier. To avoid mis-use and illegal use of ham amplifiers by unlicensed operators, legitimate sellers of ham amplifiers (and indeed, any amplifier) normally request that you show proof that you are a ham in order to purchase an amplifier. Unfortunately for our industry: 1. 95% of the WISPs who use external amplifiers are doing so illegally. 2. 95% of the companies who sell external amplifiers to WISPs are skating on thin ice. RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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] license for amplifier?
Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTechhttp://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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] license for amplifier?
FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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! 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] license for amplifier?
Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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! 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
20 Meg would cost me 5k. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] Net Neutrality
What are you using to tabulate your accounting data? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality We measure and record each subscriber's usage (easy to do with Mikrotik HotSpot functionality and RADIUS accounting data). 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] license for amplifier?
Long ago we used amps to overcome cable loss, before there was a good choice for POE or IF based systems. Every single one of them either failed or went flaky (YDI and other like units) I'm so distrustful of them, I wouldnt even sell them on ebay. When I have issues with the equipment at the top, it's usually the equipment, not because it's up high. If it's reliable to start with, properly protected, it will provide reliable service from up high. Put equipment that you need to tinker with, unproven equipment, untested used equipment, etc... You will have issues. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:59:48AM -0400, RickG wrote: I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] license for amplifier?
Rick, Sounds like a Job for Ubnt or MT. $200 from Ubnt and a pair of antennas and you're done. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Long ago we used amps to overcome cable loss, before there was a good choice for POE or IF based systems. Every single one of them either failed or went flaky (YDI and other like units) I'm so distrustful of them, I wouldnt even sell them on ebay. When I have issues with the equipment at the top, it's usually the equipment, not because it's up high. If it's reliable to start with, properly protected, it will provide reliable service from up high. Put equipment that you need to tinker with, unproven equipment, untested used equipment, etc... You will have issues. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:59:48AM -0400, RickG wrote: I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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
That is SO much easier to do than to try and block by app. If someone keeps hitting the threshold, bump them to the next tier of service. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as reasonable and fair as it can get. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications. They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent. In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. -Clint Ricker On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service notice? So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on day one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my understanding of this? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed. This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network openness can and must co-exist. I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
We use IEA's Radius (www.iea-software.com). It reads/writes SQL, so integrating it with Platypus is a breeze. Platypus selects the averages and e-mails the notifications automatically each month. Then generates the e-mail and opens a ticket automatically on the third month. Dave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality What are you using to tabulate your accounting data? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality We measure and record each subscriber's usage (easy to do with Mikrotik HotSpot functionality and RADIUS accounting data). 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] license for amplifier?
Ya, because this is an upgrade, I looked at this from the wrong direction. So, do you think I can make up for a 150' cable with just a radio? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Rick, Sounds like a Job for Ubnt or MT. $200 from Ubnt and a pair of antennas and you're done. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Long ago we used amps to overcome cable loss, before there was a good choice for POE or IF based systems. Every single one of them either failed or went flaky (YDI and other like units) I'm so distrustful of them, I wouldnt even sell them on ebay. When I have issues with the equipment at the top, it's usually the equipment, not because it's up high. If it's reliable to start with, properly protected, it will provide reliable service from up high. Put equipment that you need to tinker with, unproven equipment, untested used equipment, etc... You will have issues. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:59:48AM -0400, RickG wrote: I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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/
Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier?
Only one site have I seen big coax up the tower. Tsunami gear worked well on a 150' LMR400 but they had like 3 megs... We tried putting the Radwinmux (Ceragon?) ODU at the base of the tower and it was comparable but caused lock ups and loss of link a few times. Once that was put by the antenna problems went away and throughput improved. In my little experience long coax runs has not been good when it's carrying 5GHz. Redline AN50s using rg11 do better (not sure what it carries). 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Ya, because this is an upgrade, I looked at this from the wrong direction. So, do you think I can make up for a 150' cable with just a radio? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Rick, Sounds like a Job for Ubnt or MT. $200 from Ubnt and a pair of antennas and you're done. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Long ago we used amps to overcome cable loss, before there was a good choice for POE or IF based systems. Every single one of them either failed or went flaky (YDI and other like units) I'm so distrustful of them, I wouldnt even sell them on ebay. When I have issues with the equipment at the top, it's usually the equipment, not because it's up high. If it's reliable to start with, properly protected, it will provide reliable service from up high. Put equipment that you need to tinker with, unproven equipment, untested used equipment, etc... You will have issues. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:59:48AM -0400, RickG wrote: I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier?
No you can't unless the original equipment manufacturer designed an amp as part of the original system and had their system certified with that amp. RickG wrote: So, you cant legally make up for cable loss with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Unlicensed freqs don't require a license however you can not legally add an amplifier to a system (in this case, your 5 GHz backhaul) that was not originally certified with the amplifier that you want to use. Hams, who are licensed and who share some frequencies with unlicensed operators do not need an additional license to legally use an amplifier. To avoid mis-use and illegal use of ham amplifiers by unlicensed operators, legitimate sellers of ham amplifiers (and indeed, any amplifier) normally request that you show proof that you are a ham in order to purchase an amplifier. Unfortunately for our industry: 1. 95% of the WISPs who use external amplifiers are doing so illegally. 2. 95% of the companies who sell external amplifiers to WISPs are skating on thin ice. RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- 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] license for amplifier?
That actually raises a good question - are there things out there that are certified with an amp for a situation like Rick's? I assume the Tsunami's were as they only exist as a rackmount option. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: No you can't unless the original equipment manufacturer designed an amp as part of the original system and had their system certified with that amp. RickG wrote: So, you cant legally make up for cable loss with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Unlicensed freqs don't require a license however you can not legally add an amplifier to a system (in this case, your 5 GHz backhaul) that was not originally certified with the amplifier that you want to use. Hams, who are licensed and who share some frequencies with unlicensed operators do not need an additional license to legally use an amplifier. To avoid mis-use and illegal use of ham amplifiers by unlicensed operators, legitimate sellers of ham amplifiers (and indeed, any amplifier) normally request that you show proof that you are a ham in order to purchase an amplifier. Unfortunately for our industry: 1. 95% of the WISPs who use external amplifiers are doing so illegally. 2. 95% of the companies who sell external amplifiers to WISPs are skating on thin ice. RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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 1993www.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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993www.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/
[WISPA] amplifiers
As we are on the subject of amplifiers. can anyone point me to somewhere that could provide me with an amplifier for 10.758Ghz. Thanks Richard 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] license for amplifier?
Correct. Not unless the amp is certified with your radio system. Chris -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? So, you cant legally make up for cable loss with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Unlicensed freqs don't require a license however you can not legally add an amplifier to a system (in this case, your 5 GHz backhaul) that was not originally certified with the amplifier that you want to use. Hams, who are licensed and who share some frequencies with unlicensed operators do not need an additional license to legally use an amplifier. To avoid mis-use and illegal use of ham amplifiers by unlicensed operators, legitimate sellers of ham amplifiers (and indeed, any amplifier) normally request that you show proof that you are a ham in order to purchase an amplifier. Unfortunately for our industry: 1. 95% of the WISPs who use external amplifiers are doing so illegally. 2. 95% of the companies who sell external amplifiers to WISPs are skating on thin ice. RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ 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] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... -- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . 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] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
This is a new product and should be available next week. Regards, Scott Parsons Tycon Power Systems -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:45 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... -- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
$1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] license for amplifier?
You will have: 16.23 db loss at the cable length minus connectors using LMR 400 LMR 600 will give you a bit better at: 10.89 db Perhaps use LMR 600 for a shot that big, otherwise, I would go PoE. -Cameron -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Ya, because this is an upgrade, I looked at this from the wrong direction. So, do you think I can make up for a 150' cable with just a radio? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Rick, Sounds like a Job for Ubnt or MT. $200 from Ubnt and a pair of antennas and you're done. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Long ago we used amps to overcome cable loss, before there was a good choice for POE or IF based systems. Every single one of them either failed or went flaky (YDI and other like units) I'm so distrustful of them, I wouldnt even sell them on ebay. When I have issues with the equipment at the top, it's usually the equipment, not because it's up high. If it's reliable to start with, properly protected, it will provide reliable service from up high. Put equipment that you need to tinker with, unproven equipment, untested used equipment, etc... You will have issues. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:59:48AM -0400, RickG wrote: I've only lost one amp over the years as opposed to many issues with equipment at the top. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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
$40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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] Net Neutrality
I found out that going from 10Mb to 50Mb was rather inexpensive. We went from 1700 to $2080 including local loop. My other connection is 100Mb at $24/Mb, burstable to 300Mb at $15/Mb over 100 including local loop. I was about 2 months late getting in on their promo of $8/Mb. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Andy Trimmell Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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
Cogent? I remember when they offered 1Gb/$3k and the ISPs jumped on it, then they bumped it to $6k for 1Gb for ISPs. I thought they recently went to $4/Mb with the We match any price. Although I didn't really like them when we were doing the servers/datacenter thing years ago, they have made some improvements to make themselves attractive. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of sa...@jeffcosoho.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Importance: High $600/mth for 100/100M in the US and EU on a 1GB port. $7/M if you burst over 100M. Basically you get $6/M for committed bandwidth and $7/M over commitment. If any of yawl want to send me your address off-list, I will see where the nearest POP is. My house is 33 miles from the data center and loop on fiber is $1700/mth. Yes, I could shoot it out here but I really like setting on glass. Jim Blair Davis wrote: $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
Scott Whats the availability on the TP-DCDC series? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Parsons Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:26 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC This is a new product and should be available next week. Regards, Scott Parsons Tycon Power Systems -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:45 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... -- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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
It's the same here. Starting at 20 meg but going up to 50 is just a little more. No need for that right now on my end but it only takes a phone call and it's on. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I found out that going from 10Mb to 50Mb was rather inexpensive. We went from 1700 to $2080 including local loop. My other connection is 100Mb at $24/Mb, burstable to 300Mb at $15/Mb over 100 including local loop. I was about 2 months late getting in on their promo of $8/Mb. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Andy Trimmell Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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
As Blake said before, Location, location, location. I've heard of prices below $1/meg on full GigE multi location deals. I can get $4.50/meg in Chicago on a 100 meg pipe on a month-month contract. $4 if I go GigE+ - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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
Can you send me some of that in a FedEx mailer? I'll pay the shipping! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality As Blake said before, Location, location, location. I've heard of prices below $1/meg on full GigE multi location deals. I can get $4.50/meg in Chicago on a 100 meg pipe on a month-month contract. $4 if I go GigE+ - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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
Err, Brad, not Blake. Blake is the tower guy! - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:24 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality As Blake said before, Location, location, location. I've heard of prices below $1/meg on full GigE multi location deals. I can get $4.50/meg in Chicago on a 100 meg pipe on a month-month contract. $4 if I go GigE+ - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $40 a meg is ridiculously low. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality $1600 per 10M here I'd kill for either of those deals! Josh Luthman wrote: $1500 for 20 megs here. Nearly double your cost. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. We pay almost 800 bucks for 20/20 meg. To not do any shaping we would Thats cheap compared to what we pay! You are paying about $40 a meg. Is that tier1 bandwidth? We are paying about $100 meg for tier1. Matt have to charge way more than anyone will pay. Take the 800 bucks split by 20 then add overhead costs and it's too much to bear. Bandwidth that will handle 500+ customers with shaping would then, if totally net neutral, only go to 20 customers or less. To be true net neutral is just to pass all the traffic through with no touching it. Reasonable network management, as Josh says, is pretty broad in definition. 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! 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] Death Valley CA WISP
I found these WISP's outside of Death Valley: http://www.air-internet.com http://www.ezznet.com http://www.mojavedevelopment.com/Isp.htm The Panamint Springs Resort, just outside Death Valley has a Wifi network in the campground and Motel fed by a Satellite connection. With just a few exceptions, all of the Death Valley surrounding mountains are within the Park Service. A friend of a friend is the owner of some of this property that may have clear line of sight in and out of the valley. I camp and explore in and around the Death Valley area several times a year and I'm fairly familiar with the topography. Frank Keeney -Original Message- From: 3-dB Networks Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:09 AM Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley? 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] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
TP-DCDC are In stock and shipping. Scott -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC Scott Whats the availability on the TP-DCDC series? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Parsons Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:26 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC This is a new product and should be available next week. Regards, Scott Parsons Tycon Power Systems -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:45 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... -- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Firmware needed...
I posted a URL to it on the mailing list a while ago...it's on my dropbox. On 9/22/09, Eje Gustafsson e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Could someone please send me Motorola Canopy v7.3.6 DES firmware? I got a site down only thing I got around is a older P9 non-advantage AP but it is running 7.2.9 so can not set in the web interface to hardware scheduling so I can upgrade to v8- since it requires 7.3.6. / Eje 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] Firmware needed...
On it's way offlist. -Kevin On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Eje Gustafsson e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Could someone please send me Motorola Canopy v7.3.6 DES firmware? I got a site down only thing I got around is a older P9 non-advantage AP but it is running 7.2.9 so can not set in the web interface to hardware scheduling so I can upgrade to v8- since it requires 7.3.6. / Eje 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] license for amplifier?
Use POE vs LMR! --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] license for amplifier? I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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] license for amplifier?
?? Lets see a 433 with two radio cards would be a few hundred for a complete repeater :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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! 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] Firmware needed...
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/60247/canopy/CANOPY736_DES.pkg2 http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/60247/canopy/CANOPY736_DES.zip 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: On it's way offlist. -Kevin On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Eje Gustafsson e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Could someone please send me Motorola Canopy v7.3.6 DES firmware? I got a site down only thing I got around is a older P9 non-advantage AP but it is running 7.2.9 so can not set in the web interface to hardware scheduling so I can upgrade to v8- since it requires 7.3.6. / Eje 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] Firmware needed...
Thanks guys. Should have the tower up now tomorrow morning (weather permitting). /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:37:51 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Firmware needed... http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/60247/canopy/CANOPY736_DES.pkg2 http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/60247/canopy/CANOPY736_DES.zip 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: On it's way offlist. -Kevin On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Eje Gustafsson e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Could someone please send me Motorola Canopy v7.3.6 DES firmware? I got a site down only thing I got around is a older P9 non-advantage AP but it is running 7.2.9 so can not set in the web interface to hardware scheduling so I can upgrade to v8- since it requires 7.3.6. / Eje 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! 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] license for amplifier?
Ya thats not bad. The other problem with this tower is that because of the terrain, you cant get a bucket near it for most of the year. So, I was just trying to keep the electonics at the bottom. The other end is only about 2 miles so I bet I can squeeze enough signal with XR5 and no amp. Thanks to all! -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: ?? Lets see a 433 with two radio cards would be a few hundred for a complete repeater :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.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:
Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
I can't use 3650 out here. We're in an exclusion zone. marlon - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices Marlon - looked into Redline an80i 3.65? It's like 3k for the low speed key of 14 megs and maybe 4k for something more like 40 megs. You can upgrade from low to high speed key later at no dollar penalty. Keep in mind low speed is 7mhz and high speed is 20mhz. On 9/16/09, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: Uh, guys, this is interesting. But it doesn't answer the original question! I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution. 20 megs both ways will do just fine for now. What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution. Something less than $3000 if it's at all possible. I know about the MT gear. I''ve already used one. And I REALLY like the Airaya gear it'll replace. I'm just wondering what people are using and liking. I don't want any unproven brand new gear. Or something too cheap like an 802.11a ap and client setup. thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote: As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval. They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board wireless. You are half correct. The Crossroads does have a built-in radio. The RB411 does not. There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * 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/ -- 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/ 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] customer bandwidth ratio
OK, we have the graphs opened up so you guys can see them. http://64.146.146.1:81/ That's about 300 wireless and 70 ftth plus web and email servers. laters, marlon 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] customer bandwidth ratio
Hey, it works! Thanks, Marion. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] customer bandwidth ratio OK, we have the graphs opened up so you guys can see them. http://64.146.146.1:81/ That's about 300 wireless and 70 ftth plus web and email servers. laters, marlon 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] customer bandwidth ratio
Lucky shit On 9/22/09, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Yeah, but he charges by the mb. Funny how they play differently when the meter is running. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] customer bandwidth ratio Wow they don't use very much do they... 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 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.comwrote: OK, we have the graphs opened up so you guys can see them. http://64.146.146.1:81/ That's about 300 wireless and 70 ftth plus web and email servers. laters, marlon 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/ -- 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/
[WISPA] Organite defense
Anyone else tired of these do-gooders and their organite gifting of your towers? Here I am, minding my own business and they come and place this darned organite near my tower, messing up all the funny shaped clouds I've been working so hard to create for the government and their secret weather control project. I'm looking for something that can counter act this most powerful substance. Any ideas? My handlers at the NSA won't help, you all know how THAT goes! Always their needs, never mine. National security this, weather control that, blah, blah, blah Whatever. In case you aren't in the loop and haven't received your secret and confidential memo, look it up on You Tube. It will explain the danger. I feel like I need to sprinkle maybe some ground up goat spleen or something around the tower for protection from the organite energy waves... It works to slow my electric meter, maybe it will defend against this as well. Too bad Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies isn't with us any more, she would certainly know the fix for this. Suggestions are welcome. The serious side of this is that I see it's been going around and I just saw it. More crazies messing about the towers. I had a long conversation with a customer today about all of this, she was concerned about these weather experiments and wanted to know if we were involved. How do you defend against stupidity? 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] customer bandwidth ratio
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 08:26:25PM -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: OK, we have the graphs opened up so you guys can see them. http://64.146.146.1:81/ That's about 300 wireless and 70 ftth plus web and email servers. Can you fix those graphs to retain the maximum 5 minute value for each of the successively averaged down periods? With it all wrapped up in the Mikrotik stuff, you may not have access to that option. In MRTG speak: WithPeak[_]: wmy That way you can see how much peak bandwidth you *actually* used a year ago. I find it useful. -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lamb...@lambertfam.org 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/
