[WISPA] FL Panhandle or south AL WISP?
If you are a WISP in the subject area and would like a visit from me around the 11th of December, please let me know OFFLIST. I'd know I'd enjoy and appreciate it. Regards, Patrick Leary Eastern U.S. Canada Sales Director Alvarion m: 727.501.3735 o: 727.851.9140 FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force panelist, 2002 WISP Advocate of the Year, 2002, Part-15.org Most Significant Vendor, 2008, WISPA Knight of the Black Tie awardee, 2012, WISPA This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FL Panhandle or south AL WISP?
North Alabama here - love visiting in South Alabama. I'm sure our broadband folks would love to meet you from our state office. You, of course, are legendary (everyone knew who you were at Wisapaloosa in Vegas, me, not so much, but we did chat a bit). I know there are few WISPs in South Alabama - it's mostly rural and our state broadband coordinator, Jessica Dent, would LOVE to see some started up in south Alabama. That being said, it's a three to four hour ride for me. I've thought about starting one and running it from north alabama if i could find some good people. Feel free to hit me up offlist and we'll talk more. jayfuller at cyberbroadband dot net. Joe Miller has a wisp on the coast down there (mostly in MS but he touches AL and LA) and Harbour Communications is in Mobile, but they're mostly fiber with wireless as a backup. I've got some contacts there as well. - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:35 AM Subject: [WISPA] FL Panhandle or south AL WISP? If you are a WISP in the subject area and would like a visit from me around the 11th of December, please let me know OFFLIST. I'd know I'd enjoy and appreciate it. Regards, Patrick Leary Eastern U.S. Canada Sales Director Alvarion m: 727.501.3735 o: 727.851.9140 FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force panelist, 2002 WISP Advocate of the Year, 2002, Part-15.org Most Significant Vendor, 2008, WISPA Knight of the Black Tie awardee, 2012, WISPA This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Sky Pilot and EOIP?
I am working with another operator in my area. He wants me to provide connectivity for one of his Access Gateways. I can get a link to his remote site and his main office, my plan is to build an EOIP tunnel for him. Has anyone ever used an EOIP tunnel to connect a Gateway back to the Controller? Any issues? Thanks, - Matt ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
Hi Folks, Hopefully this isn't too far off subject for this list. I want to start learning a little more about mikrotik, but I'm having trouble finding good study resources. I've looked at the wiki, and while good, it's more of a cookbook than a tech-pub, at least IMO. I don't want How to replace your linksys with an MT and don't need a lot of extra text to slog through that's mostly present to keep me engaged/motivated. I'm very used to reading Cisco's doc-cd (or whatever they're calling it these days) and honestly prefer technically rich but direct and to the point. I'd also prefer CLI examples rather than looking at rescaled screenies from winbox. Does such a beast exist? If not, what's the standard way to delve in to ROS? As an example of what I'm running up against, I'll use queuing. I use DSCP markings on the network I manage to differentiate traffic. I was stunned to discover that MT (apparently) can't simply match existing DSCP markings and act on them, but instead requires me to match them, give them some internal packet mark, and then act on those non-DSCP markings. I wanted to better understand what was really going on inside the router, and wanted to verify that what I thought I understood was really the case. I read the wiki pages on HTB and Queues, but I still don't truly understand how to guarantee, say EF tagged traffic, a certain amount of bandwidth other than limit-at= and a higher relative priority setting (priority=1?). But is that single queue enough, or do I also need to create what in cisco-land would be class-default? TBH, I still don't even understand how and what MT uses internally to mark packets with tags like VoipTraffic or whatever. Obviously the packet isn't being marked with an ascii string... Ideas? Better place to ask this? Thanks! TD ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Sky Pilot and EOIP?
EOIP warning... Note: EoIP tunnel adds at least 42 byte overhead (8byte GRE + 14 byte Ethernet + 20 byte IP) Otherwise it should be entirely transparent. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote: I am working with another operator in my area. He wants me to provide connectivity for one of his Access Gateways. I can get a link to his remote site and his main office, my plan is to build an EOIP tunnel for him. Has anyone ever used an EOIP tunnel to connect a Gateway back to the Controller? Any issues? Thanks, - Matt ___ Members mailing list memb...@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
My experience...I haven't found any paper that gets you started. The GUI and CLI are nearly identical in structure, though. I knew a little bit but it wasn't until after I took Butch's MT class I really got into MT. Butch has a basic and advanced course. You will want to ask which is better for you, but I think it sounds like you want advanced. Also try mikro...@mail.butchevans.com for MT stuff. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tim Densmore tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com wrote: Hi Folks, Hopefully this isn't too far off subject for this list. I want to start learning a little more about mikrotik, but I'm having trouble finding good study resources. I've looked at the wiki, and while good, it's more of a cookbook than a tech-pub, at least IMO. I don't want How to replace your linksys with an MT and don't need a lot of extra text to slog through that's mostly present to keep me engaged/motivated. I'm very used to reading Cisco's doc-cd (or whatever they're calling it these days) and honestly prefer technically rich but direct and to the point. I'd also prefer CLI examples rather than looking at rescaled screenies from winbox. Does such a beast exist? If not, what's the standard way to delve in to ROS? As an example of what I'm running up against, I'll use queuing. I use DSCP markings on the network I manage to differentiate traffic. I was stunned to discover that MT (apparently) can't simply match existing DSCP markings and act on them, but instead requires me to match them, give them some internal packet mark, and then act on those non-DSCP markings. I wanted to better understand what was really going on inside the router, and wanted to verify that what I thought I understood was really the case. I read the wiki pages on HTB and Queues, but I still don't truly understand how to guarantee, say EF tagged traffic, a certain amount of bandwidth other than limit-at= and a higher relative priority setting (priority=1?). But is that single queue enough, or do I also need to create what in cisco-land would be class-default? TBH, I still don't even understand how and what MT uses internally to mark packets with tags like VoipTraffic or whatever. Obviously the packet isn't being marked with an ascii string... Ideas? Better place to ask this? Thanks! TD ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
Learn RouterOS. http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm By Dennis out at Link Technologies Was useful for me. -- On 11/28/2012 3:06 PM, Tim Densmore wrote: Hi Folks, Hopefully this isn't too far off subject for this list. I want to start learning a little more about mikrotik, but I'm having trouble finding good study resources. I've looked at the wiki, and while good, it's more of a cookbook than a tech-pub, at least IMO. I don't want "How to replace your linksys with an MT" and don't need a lot of extra text to slog through that's mostly present to keep me engaged/motivated. I'm very used to reading Cisco's doc-cd (or whatever they're calling it these days) and honestly prefer technically rich but direct and to the point. I'd also prefer CLI examples rather than looking at rescaled screenies from winbox. Does such a beast exist? If not, what's the standard way to delve in to ROS? As an example of what I'm running up against, I'll use queuing. I use DSCP markings on the network I manage to differentiate traffic. I was stunned to discover that MT (apparently) can't simply match existing DSCP markings and act on them, but instead requires me to match them, give them some internal packet mark, and then act on those non-DSCP markings. I wanted to better understand what was really going on inside the router, and wanted to verify that what I thought I understood was really the case. I read the wiki pages on HTB and Queues, but I still don't truly understand how to guarantee, say EF tagged traffic, a certain amount of bandwidth other than limit-at= and a higher relative priority setting (priority=1?). But is that single queue enough, or do I also need to create what in cisco-land would be "class-default?" TBH, I still don't even understand how and what MT uses internally to "mark" packets with tags like "VoipTraffic" or whatever. Obviously the packet isn't being marked with an ascii string... Ideas? Better place to ask this? Thanks! TD ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder fiber) as well as last mile distribution. But there's no clear obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served areas in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC. Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. The applications are merely suggestions of where they might find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is acceptable, so it's an open question now. I'd think that a WISP should be allowed to know if the ILEC plans to build subsidized service to an area they're thinking of building to, so this should be public information, not confidential. So tell the FCC! I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of this. It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and then the 30 day Comment period begins. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
Fred, I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this. You make great points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW! Those that don't will be suffering from subsidized competition. Anyone who does not know who to contact, drop me a line. I have contacts now for all states. Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources. There is one now, but it is not complete. I now have 4-5 names per state I believe. The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well. Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12- 138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder fiber) as well as last mile distribution. But there's no clear obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served areas in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC. Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. The applications are merely suggestions of where they might find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
Perhaps renewed efforts with the vendors? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:45:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Fred, I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this. You make great points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW! Those that don't will be suffering from subsidized competition. Anyone who does not know who to contact, drop me a line. I have contacts now for all states. Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources. There is one now, but it is not complete. I now have 4-5 names per state I believe. The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well. Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12- 138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder fiber) as well as last mile distribution. But there's no clear obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served areas in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC. Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
For a one time payment of $775 per home, I can connect ALL the unconnected homes in my county... But that is not how it works, is it? I'll be buried in red tape and paper for the rest of my life, right? And, of course, since I took their money, they can now tell me how to run my network and so on... I'd be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from getting it. -- On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring "broadband" to "unserved" areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of "served" should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine "unserved" to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed "unserved", since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build a certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution. But there's no clear obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served areas in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC. Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. The applications are merely suggestions of where they might find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is acceptable, so it's an open question now. I'd think that a WISP should be allowed to know if the ILEC plans to build subsidized service to an area they're thinking of building to, so this should be public information, not confidential. So tell the FCC! I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of this. It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and then the 30 day Comment period begins. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
At 11/28/2012 05:56 PM, Blair Davis wrote: For a one time payment of $775 per home, I can connect ALL the unconnected homes in my county... But that is not how it works, is it? Alas, Phase I is for incumbents only. Phase II, when it happens next year, will allow others to bid. This will probably not be a one-time capital subsidy (which is not how USF normally works) but the more routine monthly subsidy, which is typically used to pay off RUS loans. Just who is eligible to bid on Phase is not determined yet. I'll be buried in red tape and paper for the rest of my life, right? And, of course, since I took their money, they can now tell me how to run my network and so on... That would be a problem. The rural ILECs who live on USF have staff or consultants to handle it for them. It's their main business, after all; running the network is secondary. I'd be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from getting it. If you're on the map with 3/.768, you're probably okay. Those who are not on the map should follow Rich's advice; there are ways to make it fairly easy. On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdfhttp://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per new customer. That number may be adjusted in this second round. Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy Model. In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more elaborate cost model now being debated. There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to build a certain amount of second mile (basically, exchange feeder fiber) as well as last mile distribution. But there's no clear obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through served areas in order to reach unserved ones. So even if you're on the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC. Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, *but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they would. The applications are merely suggestions of where they might find their unserved customers. They can actually spend it elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775. An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed service areas are confidential. The
Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!
Rick, It is important to note that generating a coverage map(s) on Towercoverage.com does not create a map that is easily acceptable to the state mapping agencies and it certainly cannot just be uploaded to the national broadband map. There is a great deal of post processing work to make any of those usable for the National Broadband map. The site does export a nice list of tower sites and other data that is part of the required information to be submitted. Some states may still not accept the data from this site depending on the skills of their GIS and mapping contractors. We do not want to mislead WISP's in to thinking that if they sign up with that site that would all they need to do to supply mapping data and participating on that site does not guarantee that their mapping data will be included either. Thank you, Brian Webster Telecom Project Coordinator Partnership for Connected Illinois (217) 886-4228 Main Number (217) 886-4229 Direct Line (217) 718-4546 Fax http://www.BroadbandIllinois.org -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! Fred, I assure you the WISPA FCC Committee is indeed on this. You make great points and we appreciate your review. You are definitely correct, that WISPs NEED to get on the National Broadband Map NOW! Those that don't will be suffering from subsidized competition. Anyone who does not know who to contact, drop me a line. I have contacts now for all states. Maybe, I can get that list up on the WISPA website under WISP Resources. There is one now, but it is not complete. I now have 4-5 names per state I believe. The guys at towercoverage.com are making it easy and inexpensive to make your maps and get them uploaded to the National/State Maps as well. Where there is a Wisp, there is a way! Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 Option 2 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Trina and Rick) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc! The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect America Fund, posted with no description. This turns out to be a further NPRM about Phase I funding. As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big ones) to bring broadband to unserved areas that they otherwise wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, mostly by Frontier. The Bells didn't take much. CenturyLink however whined that the definition of served should be changed to specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to overbuild existing WISPs. The FCC turned that one down, though CenturyLink did take money for some other areas. The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12- 138A1.pdf asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money. While they could of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select from. One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which begins in 2013. Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for the least subsidy money gets it. Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, essentially a second round of Phase I. They propose changing Phase I rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money. There are a lot of questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines: 1) Redefine unserved to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, vs. 768k/200k in the first round. This would be based on the National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1. (The agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.) So an area served by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed unserved, since it's not 4/1. 2) Allow challenges to the national map. So if an ILEC thinks an area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue the matter to the FCC. This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP could claim that the map omitted them by mistake. But it points out that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE MAP! (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.) They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census blocks0 next month. There are some other interesting details. Phase I awards are $775 per
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:46 -0500, Blair Davis wrote: Learn RouterOS. By Dennis out at Link Technologies A better book, IMO, is this one: http://www.amazon.com/RouterOS-by-Example-ebook/dp/B006U3MP7W for kindle and http://www.learnmikrotik.com/index.php/get-the-book.html for the paper. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
I have both books: RouterOS by example, and Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:46 -0500, Blair Davis wrote: Learn RouterOS. By Dennis out at Link Technologies A better book, IMO, is this one: http://www.amazon.com/RouterOS-by-Example-ebook/dp/B006U3MP7W for kindle and http://www.learnmikrotik.com/index.php/get-the-book.html for the paper. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
What do you think about the latter? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 29, 2012 12:13 AM, Joe Miller joe.mil...@dslbyair.com wrote: I have both books: RouterOS by example, and Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:46 -0500, Blair Davis wrote: Learn RouterOS. By Dennis out at Link Technologies A better book, IMO, is this one: http://www.amazon.com/RouterOS-by-Example-ebook/dp/B006U3MP7W for kindle and http://www.learnmikrotik.com/index.php/get-the-book.html for the paper. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials
The first book I have found works really well for someone who doesn't know Mikrotik at all. That is why I bought the book. Now that I have learned a lot from the first book, I stumbed across the Learn RouterOS at the MUM in New Orleans. I also talked with the author of the book Dennis Burgess. He and Jim Patient are both on this list. They are a good group of guys. Anyway, After having some knowledge with the first book, the second one got me farther into the weeds on how things work. Both books are good reads. Buy them both. You cannot go wrong. Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: Josh Luthman [mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:17 PM To: WISPA General List; Joe Miller Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials What do you think about the latter? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 29, 2012 12:13 AM, Joe Miller joe.mil...@dslbyair.com wrote: I have both books: RouterOS by example, and Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Books/Study Materials On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 15:46 -0500, Blair Davis wrote: Learn RouterOS. By Dennis out at Link Technologies A better book, IMO, is this one: http://www.amazon.com/RouterOS-by-Example-ebook/dp/B006U3MP7W for kindle and http://www.learnmikrotik.com/index.php/get-the-book.html for the paper. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
