Re: [WISPA] IP Tracking
David, Are you looking for a NMS-like tool as is SolarWinds? Or are you just wanting a way to keep track of your IP space? Thanks, -Anthony Bartolini- Network/RF Engineer [cid:70d2e46c-0262-43e5-ad77-a38b2dae7826] Sureline Broadband Phone: (541) 699-0030 Direct: (541) 325-4513 www.SurelineBroadband.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org on behalf of David Funderburk via Wireless Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:14:39 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] IP Tracking We are trying to better organize our IP address tracking. What affordable software do you recommend? Solarwinds is not in our budget yet. Regards, David Funderburk GlobalVision 864-569-0703 For Technical Support, please email gv-supp...@globalvision.net<mailto:gv-supp...@globalvision.net>. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by E.F.A. Project<http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be clean. Confidentiality Notice: This message and all attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C. This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Do Not Foward, Copy, or Print without the sole written consent of Sureline Broadband, LLC. If you are not the addressee or you have received this email in error, please delete this email, and contact us immediately at complia...@surelinebroadband.com. Confidentiality Notice: This message and all attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C. DO NOT FORWARD, COPY, or PRINT without the Sole Written Consent of Sureline Broadband, LLC. This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or you have received this email in error, please forward immediately to: complia...@surelinebroadband.com and then delete this email. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Email Providers?
Hi All! New around here, but not to the ISP/WISP industry. As far as E-mail is concerned, Rackspace is a great option as well. I believe it's $5.00/Month per domain. -Anthony Bartolini- Network/RF Engineer [cid:14b129df-15ef-4d1e-acc8-13d0ec57f4ca] Sureline Broadband Phone: (541) 699-0030 Direct: (541) 325-4513 www.SurelineBroadband.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org on behalf of ORI.NET - Scott LePere Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 8:17:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Providers? Ori.net can host your email - includes spam and virus filtering. Email me if interested. Scott -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org On Behalf Of d...@trcemail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 2:23 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Providers? Look at Sherweb. We use their cloud-based Exchange Server. Simple to transfer from our servers (mailenable) to exchange, they will even do it for you for free. Has web-only, web/Outlook or both. -Dan -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org On Behalf Of Tim Densmore Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Email Providers? Hi Folks, We're looking at possibly migrating our customer mail from local servers to a cloud provider (full service, not a build-our-own at AWS/google/azure/etc hopefully), though the discussion is still very much at the "talking about it" stage. Assuming that anyone here uses a cloud provider for email, does anyone on the list want to share who they are using and what their migration experience was like? Pricing would also be great, assuming no NDA. Thanks! Tim Densmore ___ 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 Confidentiality and Sensitive Information Notice: This message and all attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C. and the sole property of Sureline Broadband. This email may contain information that is privileged, sensitive, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and may not be copied, printed, or forwarded without the express and sole permission of Sureline Broadband. If you are not the addressee or you have received this email in error, please delete this email, and contact us immediately at bill...@surelinebroadband.com. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.
Hello, Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb. Anyone have a server sitting on enough bandwidth to spare I could test against. Anthony Will WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.
Hi Chuck, The injection point is sitting in the middle of a field that is not the easiest thing to access. I don't have a PC sitting at our injection point that has a web browser available to it. I do have a MT edge router though. On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: Multiple speedtest.net servers are capable of 75+...last I did one from ours it read 140Mbps over one connection. Regards, Chuck On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Anthony Will will.anth...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb. Anyone have a server sitting on enough bandwidth to spare I could test against. Anthony Will WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] What if you can't get a T3?
Very good experience with them here. Best pricing available out in the boondocks of MN. They own the tower where the fiber pop is, so or PtP link on that side is no rent. They do average a short outage every 6 weeks or so for upgrades and such, but the last notice I got was for BGP tables so looks like they finally are installing a ring at this location. My only grip with them is their peering with XO and XO's router has a tendency to start flapping. Anthony Will Broadband Corp Jon Auer wrote: We used Charter fiber for PTP and Internet Access for a few years, a few years ago. It was OK. Way more outages than the SBC DS3 that we had at the time. (a few hours of planned or unplanned downtime in the middle of the night every month) Pricing was far better than SBC. We dropped them once we built out PTP links to a datacenter with less expensive bandwidth. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com wrote: After about a year of getting the same response from ATT after multiple order requests at different locations across our network, the guy in charge of building out fiber for the region called and said what in the world are you guys doing?!? He ended up giving us the location of a few fiber terminals in the area. We found the ones closest to our network, made an agreement with a tenant nearby, and did a wireless PtP to connect it to our network. Moral of the story, we were shooting in the dark until we had an in in the right department at ATT. On a related note, does anyone have an experience with Charter's fiber services? -- Kristian Hoffmann System Administrator kh...@fire2wire.com http://www.fire2wire.com Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 22:33 -0500, Roger Howard wrote: Quick alert to those who are not aware... back when I was running my business on T1 lines, I just assumed that when I was ready, I could order a T3 and upgrade my bandwidth. Not so. Just because you can get a T1 doesn't mean you can get a T3 without huge buildout costs. I was quoted $400,000 dollars to upgrade to a T3. I managed to get around it because otherwise ATT would have had to install a high count copper line down my road to be able to keep offering POTS service here, so I got lucky, and had a free install. But you may not be that fortunate. I just thought if I posted this, it might give some people a heads up to start planning for more bandwidth when you're coming close to needing t3 type capacity. Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers
FYI, I also use everyone.net and we are not experiencing this issue. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Mark Nash wrote: These problems happen throughout the day, not just during their maintenance window. They have made us give them extensive information about the problem we and our customers have been having. I hope to have a resolution soon, or we will be switching 1000+ users to another provider. Anyone who's done that knows the undertaking it will be, but we will do it nevertheless. Right now our customers, not knowing any better, perceive this to be a problem with our INTERNET connections. That's bad. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 1702 W. 2nd Ave Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers I seem to remember that they sent out an email saying that they were going to have maintenance. 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 Mark Nash - Lists Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers We have been having alot of problems sending email through Everyone.Net's servers. Lots of server rejections, delivery resource unavailable type messages. Anyone going through the same problems? Here's a message sent by our tech to their tech support this morning. This message outlines our problems with them. - Original Message - From: Justin Mann To: Everyone.net Technical Support ; Unwired West Cc: Mark Nash Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:09 AM Subject: Continued issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers Hello, We are getting more Delivery Resource Unavailable errors from the Everyone.net SMTP servers today. This is on both shared-svc1 and shared-svc2. We would like help on why this is happening, and why we have issues sending email intermittently. I know for a fact this is an issue with the everyone.net servers; the error message is being returned from the servers themselves, after an SMTP session has been established. See the attached image; that is the error message coming from Everyone.net's servers. We didn't have many issues from this in April, but it was a nightmare earlier in the year. When email does not work, it makes it very difficult to do business. I am sure you understand our frustrations. So far, all suggestions given to us from Everyone.net have not worked. We have exhausted all potential options on our ends for reasons that we could be causing the errors. We have used different workstations, different operating systems, different mail clients, different ISPs, different email domains. We have even used different SMTP servers per your suggestion. When we use third-party SMTP servers we do not have this problem, ever. However, that is not a long-term solution. Please advise. Also, please look at the attached image. This is the type of error message we get, frequently, with both shared-svc1 and now shared-svc2. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Licensed PTMP Gear Recommendations?
Everything you said is correct, but how is that different the any of the non-licensed bands now? The main benefit is if someone else deploys they have to come to the table and work out an agreement so that everyone can live in the space. Now if to many start deploying obviously that is going to be troublesome. But again I ask how is that any different then non-licensed except you will be able to find the other party much easier due to the fcc database. The vast majority of the equipment being deployed at this time is wimax, this standard has sync that will allow many more players / towers to reuse the spectrum. The couple solutions out there that are not wimax are generally ptp or a wifi hack. Well, most wifi gear is going to be cdma and you generally will cause them more issues then they give you with lack of a sync solution. Again not really any different then non licensed. Well... other then you don't have to contend with baby monitors, wifi routers, etc etc Anthony Will Broadband Corp Scott Carullo wrote: I'm not sure about 3.65 for a few reasons... I've heard conflicting info so maybe some feedback on my worries would help. I'd have to get special permission here in FL because we are in a grandfathered zone. No problem though, we have already done the necessary homework and contacted the right people. I was told by someone I trust that deploying non-exclusive licensed 3.65 gear would never be appealing to them since there are only one or two channels that one more WISP fires up some gear (legally or not) and it could take me out and there would not be much I can do due to the channel restrictions. Seems like a valid point, do you all not worry about this? Having a customer base running on a freq you can't change nor protect seems like a disaster in the making. I think the first guys who deploy would be fine but it would be really bad if the next guy took you out of commission and there was nothing you could do. Any of this valid? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 9:52 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed PTMP Gear Recommendations? What about 3.65? Would that do? On 5/8/10, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: I am looking for gear to place on one tower that is congested with non-licensed gear already. Does anyone have any suggestions on some gear that I can use for this? Looking for maybe 3 or 4 APs on this site for 360 coverage. They cannot be placed right next to one another as the top 4 corners of the building are not connected. They will be located hundreds of feet apart. Thanks Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Who needs a Network Engineer ?
A few of you may remember me, as I used to frequent these halls quite often. If you don't, I am the former Senior Network Engineer / Architect for Cyberlink International / AAA Wireless here in Indiana, current owner of http://bgpguru.com/ and just in general a networking geek. But I digress. I am currently actively looking for another full time Network Engineering position, if you are in need of such services please contact me off list and I can send you my résumé and any information you wish. I'll keep this short, thank you for your time, -Tony -- Anthony R. Mattke t...@mattke.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] 3.65 ptp
I think the main confusion here is people are mixing up the Part 15 rules and the part 90 rules. Part 15 the whole system has to be type certified. In Part 90 the transmitter has to be certified along with other regulations. Part 90 is a different ball game people, it is licensed and WILL be enforced. Find the rules, read the rules and talk to a lawyer in the industry if you have any confusion. Your business maybe at stake if you mess up. Anthony Will Broadband Corp e...@wisp-router.com wrote: That is my understanding as well from talking with a certification lab. Lower and equal gain antennas of same type as certified are allowed to be substituted by the manufacturer. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: lakel...@gbcx.net Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:52:36 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp As per the FCC only the anufacturer can make the determination which antenna is similar in specifications. Otherwise it needs FCC certification as a system. That was from the horses mouth about 18 months ago Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:47:42 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Who has the final word on this? I've been told by testing laboratories that do testing for the FCC that this is not the case... They said if the radio card (5Ghz when I asked but for this discussion it doesn't matter) had been approved with an antenna then you could use the same or less db like antenna and you were good to go - assuming the card manufacturer (like ubiquity) had had appropriate testing completed and filed with FCC. It sure is difficult for any of us to make heads or tales out of what can or can't be done because everyone has a different opinion - even the people at the top of the food chain I guess. Who's right? And how am I supposed to know? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Harold Bledsoe hbled...@deliberant.net Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90 licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected. Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. This is covered with a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically. So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. In this case, a Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location. This is why the label is important. This kind of system built from modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about unintentional interference. This information tells anyone including the FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case). If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default. Then if there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed properly). Finally if there are problems with the unintentional emissions, it is the system assembler's problem. I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band. So why does Part 15 even matter? Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the spectrum. :-) -Hal -Original Message- From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT My system is fully licensed. How did you get your combination of XR3 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David SmithMVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to knowwhatyouthink.
So from the sound of this I should be looking at LTE as my next technology solution? Keeping in mind the LTE still is not here? Also keeping in mind that it will likely never be developed in an unlicensed spectrum solution except for maybe TV White spaces since the current networks that are deploying expect to use 700mhz as their solution. What does WiMAX even bring to the table then? The only spectrum to reliably deploy it in is 25mhz of 3650 spectrum since it is not interference tolerant. That seems like a large investment for such a small amount of spectrum especially since there are more cost effective products out today that are as good or better than WiMAX on the table, for many more bands of spectrum. I guess my real question is why WiMAX? PS I really would like to deploy WiMAX and expect to, but I am looking exclusively at .e since it is the only standard still being actively worked on that I am aware of. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. John Rock wrote: Well said Patrick... I would like to add - as a whole the industry uses the word mobility all the time and has used that pretense of mobile broadband coverage anywhere you go as a staple to the word WiMAX. The truth is WiMAX from about any of the WiMAX manufacturers has made great improvements in QoS and receive sensitivities with the use of smarter antenna technology but still fall short in the realm of seamless mobility most of us have grown to expect with our cell phones/hand held devices. That is 802.16d 802.16e offers the promise of mobility in a seamless sense, meaning roaming from tower to tower or sector to sector without any noticeable drop in service. Wow I wish my cell phone never dropped a call. That may sound great but like Patrick said the carrier groups that can maybe afford the costs of the huge build out required to have that type of coverage have their ties to LTE technology or are tied up with the tough economic times as we all are. Now let's look at the present technology of 802.16d and Aperto as this thread entails. I can drive from one town to another and get associated and pass data(12Mbx8Mb). Since I drove with a CPE in my car and mobile antenna on my roof that makes me mobile on that network right. So I may have dropped a few packets as I roamed from site to site but as long as I can get IP back up everything is good. Aperto has a very reliable cost effective solution today for 3.65GHz and like any manufacture it has the functionality of WiMAX which helps a ton with service profiling for your customers. If people are not using some sort of 802.16(WiMAX) product they are falling behind in the exciting future of the Wireless Marketplace. Now a WiMAX rant, not sure if the WiMAX Forums ears are open but, I am disappointed that I do not have a CPE(802.16d) that can link to anyone's Base Stations. Sure with the onset of 802.16e that is supposed to work but the lack of earlier interoperability that the WiMAX forum promised from the onset has been disappointing to me. If we had interoperable systems like the essence of WiFi with the current WiMAX systems the marketplace may have been quicker to embrace the technology and great strides could have been made for network roaming already. Roaming agreements could already be in place if interoperability was the true focus from the beginning. End WiMAX rant John Rock Director of Operations - Senior Engineer Wireless Connections 166 Milan Ave., Norwalk, Oh. 44857 ACCessing the Future Today!! ofc. 419.660.6100 cell 419-706-7356 fax 419-668-4077 http://www.wirelessconnections.net This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain confidential and/or privileged information and intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, copying or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete this electronic mail. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:00 PM To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to knowwhatyouthink. It's a fair question and it bugs me too. Fact is, I was a more than a bit blind and thought I was more objective than I really was. Also, since then the economy and other conditions has conspired to kick e in the teeth a bit. I still believe it is great technology for nomadic and perhaps mobile, but it is damned near impossible to fight the LTE interests AND the current economy that is so weak no big guys are spending big CAPEX, giving LTE all the time it needs to catch technically (and it already dominates politically). That has me moving
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
It is also seems to be citing that way over used and mostly irrelevant OECD statistics. http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/MeetingAgendasandMinutes/MeetingAgendasandMinutes54.asp Had a presentation and there are links to a power point and very extensive study on the OECD numbers by Scott Wallsten a Berkly grad working with http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/ . In the end when all counties have 100% penetration due to household size the US will be ranted around 18th in the world. But it just sells papers to have the US look bad I guess. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it leaves you with a false impression because of it. It made note of the price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places. That's true, but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the customers of the ISP's. I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in the US, and more everywhere else. It's not the price, it's the COST that matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the equation. Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is rarely factored in these articles. That leaves a false impression of it being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed. * By L. GORDON CROVITZ In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even in France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S. The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now ranks 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access to broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S. The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not in the U.S. The Opinion Journal Widget Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page. So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how to upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring broadband to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster information highway. But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with the fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private capital and initiative and not by government. The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial list of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry Association, National Cable Telecommunications Association, Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies. The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the spending differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may balance competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering too few options to consumers. Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control over half the grants and the Commerce
[WISPA] Billing and process management system
Hello I need a new billing / CRM solution. What are all of you using at this time and is it going to scale with you? I dont mind if it is not all under one program. If I have to pay someone to customize something I don't care I just need something that works. WILL PAY FOR IT. Some things it has to have: A system that integrates with a bandwidth management and auto shutdown for delinquent accounts. Can process a customer form lead to install and handle trouble tickets afterward including installer scheduling. Can actually accurately and consistently send a bill by email to a customer... - major importance. Credit Card processing. Decent and totally customizable report generating system. Customer portal. Things that would be a bonus Inventory management Network monitoring I apologize for the cross post, Anthony Will Broadband Corp http://www.broadband-mn.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] heavy usage customers
With Canopy, and a correctly configured polling AP there is no competition for time slices unless the AP is overloaded. This is how the latency is consistent. Canopy has what is called control slots. This is a predetermined time that the SM is allowed to ask for resources. Increasing control slots can decrease overall bandwidth available by using up an additional time slice but allows for the latency to be consistent no matter the load. Basically the latency is built into the polling system. That is why a Trango, wifi and other solutions have a starting latency of 4ms vs Canopy at 8ms. The issues is the busier the Trango, wifi etc. get the higher the latency gets as the SM / CPE are asking for the AP's attention over top each other. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Guaranteeing latency One of the things we learned is that the ISP can't measure the customer's experience of latency accurately. And if the can;t measure it, they cant guarantee it. When pings initiate from the AP side, they always send without delay. When pings initiate from the SU side, they can be delayed from the polling or competing for their timeslice to transmit. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers Hi, We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address. We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management). When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was color code. This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the installer doing anything in the field. And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160 people to find them by MAC address? Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific percentage of up/down. And how do you guarantee 7ms latency? What happens if a customer gets 8ms? And how do they test that measurement? And what happens when a customer completely clobbers an AP and 160 customers are getting 20ms latency? Or you have interference from a new provider and all those people get 100ms latency? Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: All of the complaints are easily overcome with the proper management software, DHCP reservations etc. You can easily force the SM to connect to the exact AP you want a couple different ways. And there are several non motorola software packages that do this kind of stuff. We have 5000 subs on it and we don't break a sweat in managing any of this. We put 128-160 customers per AP and they all still get 10.2 Mbps burst. Slower radio? That seems pretty fast to me. And we guarantee latency to 7 mS. Hmmm, that is pretty hard to do with anyone else. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers We've tried Canopy... twice in fact... once about 3 years ago, and once about a month ago. We just can't make it fit into our network management (IP database, Call tracking, customer management, etc.) system very well... having customer radios that change their LUID and IP address every time they register, having to set the bandwidth on each SM instead of the AP, having no security or ways to control which AP a customer connects to without having to buy their software, etc. All that, plus paying MORE for a slower radio than what we are using just didn't make sense. I can put up an AP (2.4ghz, 5.3ghz, 5.4ghz, or 5.8ghz) for less than $400 that will support 50 customers, using only 10mhz wide channels... and each CPE is less than $175 complete (including PoE, antenna). Canopy seems to work well for many people... but I've never been one to follow the norm. And I get to put $50 in my pocket on every install, and $1,000 for every AP we put up. ;) Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Well that is a testimony to your quality of service for sure. Now, if you were using Canopy your customers would be even happier! - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 02
Re: [WISPA] wierd ap issue - ap thinks default plug is in
We have seen this when a spider makes it's home in the enclosure and it's webbing shorts the default wiring. If rebooting does not resolve you can expect a climb on this one. Before climbing physically disconnect the power to reboot the unit just to be sure. Your customers are not working? This would lead me to believe there are greater issues in play here. The default plug should only reset the password and IP address to the system default. It should not have changed color code or disabled the units ability to pass traffic. I could be wrong on that as I have never defaulted an AP before. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Wisp wrote: Latest firmware, no sync cable, we sync over power Already replaced it but I will try reflashing firmware to see if that fixes it Sent from my iPhone On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Eric Muehleisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've seen this happen in the past. Do you have a sync cable plugged into the sync port? Have you tried upgrading firmware? -Eric WISP wrote: I had to reboot one of my towers tonight and when the access point came back with Default plug overrides configured parameters Since this P10 AP has been up for 7 months, and rebooted 20 times or so and no tower climbs, I am fairly certain that it doesn't have a default plug in it. Has anyone ever seen this and if so, is there any fix. My awesome motorola support guy told me after my description of it says the default plug is in was to replace the unit. Is there any way to have the ap ignore the default plug temporarily so that I can have it working until I can get up the tower. thanks, Cliff --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] NOGO's
10% nogo that gets databased and mapped for future wireless site planning and marketing efforts. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com/ Travis Johnson wrote: Along a different line... What is everyone's percentage on NOGO's (that's what we call people we try to install and can't get a good enough signal)? Ours was quite a bit higher than I thought when I looked a few days ago... Out of 1,500+ completed installs during the last 12 months, we had 208 people we couldn't install successfully. If we only had more time to find more tower locations... :( Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We always assume we will get a signal. We are rarely wrong. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik disconnectissueOct7th, 2008 So there are people that don't roll a truck because some software says you may not be able to get a connection? That seems like a pretty poor idea to me... we have clients that we had to try 3 or 4 different towers with 2 or 3 different frequencies before we get a good signal. This tool may have disqualified that customer, yet we got them installed. Plus, how do you know if you want to make their location your next repeater to service that area if you just tell them no over the phone? ;) Travis Microserv Brian Webster wrote: On the topic of knowing if the lead was qualified and you could offer service to that lead location (start shameless plug), I know of a company that can provide you with an inexpensive tool to do a lookup by address and give the answer while still on the phone.. As some of the folks on this list who already use it for their opinion of how well it works and increases productivity and decrease truck rolls to bad installs. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of RickG Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik disconnectissueOct7th, 2008 Great post Tom! As I mentioned earlier, we used to give $20. A study by my marketing person showed 90% of our new installs were referrals. The interesting part was when asked, the referrer said they would've provided the referral whether or not the $20 was offered. -RickG On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Anyone have any idea what percentage of customers provide referrals, with a program like free month for each referral? 2. Has anyone asked their customers that have not provided referrals, what would be adequate incentive for them to be willing to? 3. How well do these programs work for residential versus business? I'm just asking because... Some of our customers have said that the did not refer because a) its against their corporate policy to give referrals. b) afraid their service would slow down because, there would be less capacity available to themselves afterwords. c) they did not want to be held accountable for their implied indorsement, if service for the new referred to company did not work out well. d) the compensation amounts were not significant enough for them to extend the effort, or track it.. e) There job was not to be our salesman, that was our job. f) They already refer, and they'd already do that regardless of getting any payment compensation, so compensation unnecessary. They'd rather us put that money into maintaining/upgrading our network. g) It was unclear whether the appropriate person would get compensation. For example, if a employee made the referral, they personally would have very little benefit for their employer to save and get a month free. What I'm most interested in is What would encourage a higher number of customers to start referring qualified leads. One potential negative I predicted was that referrals would come in as unqualified leads. Previously leads came in for areas that we could not serve. I made that mistake advertising residential in the yelloe pages. So much of my time was wasted on leads that would never be feasible to close. Just doing the Google map pre-surveys would kill half the day, and could burry productivity for a small staffed company. Leads aren;t good, unless there is a high chance that the lead will materialize. So this brings me back to How will the promotion incourage the customer to bring in qualified leads? How will the customer understand who would be qualified? Thats why I like stipulatons such as We pay you X, if you refer a customer in your building or in your neighborhood, or within 1/2 mile of your address. Etc Etc. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...
Try pinging the NS2's with 512k or larger packets and see if they associate at a higher level. It might be showing that when there is not communication with any wi-fi device it operates in 1mb mode for basic association communication. If it changes to what you would expect then I would not be to worried about it. If it stays then be afraid... be very afraid or at least make sure you have the newest firmware on them and see if that helps. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Blair Davis wrote: I am starting to wounder about this issue myself Sunday, I replaced an old,(6 years in service!), Hermes I based AP, (base mounted radio, top mounted 1W amp, 150ft LMR-400) with a top mounted RB532A 5.8GHz backhaul and 2.4GHz AP. The radio card for the AP is an XR2 into a 9db Comet omni. 8ft of LMR-400. Set in B/G mode. Preamble set to both. CH9. All other settings, except ESSID are default. Connected to this AP was quite a mixture of clients, including: Tranzeo CPE-80, CPE-90, CPE-200, CPE-CPQ Lucent Hermes I client Senao CB3, EOC-2260 Ubquity NS2 Notes on the change. Sig strength reported by the mt range from -51 to -92 Thruput on the AP tripled. tests to my laptop while standing at the base exceeded 7Mb/sec which saturated my fiber. tests before the change could not exceed 2Mb/sec. The Tranzeo cpe-80 would not stay connected. it would connect and disconnect on a 5 sec cycle. replaced it with an eoc-2260 The B clients, all 6 of them, have stayed connected since power up. The NS2's, all 5 of them, seem to disconnect/reconnect in a block once or so a day. some of the remaining G clients, 4 of them, seem to disconnect/reconnect in a block in 8-9 hours the remaining G clients, 4 of them, are all over the place. from 18 hours to 1 hour. I would not read too much into this however, as some of my users power their radios down when not in use. The NS2's are all reported with anything from 1Mbps to 54Mbps as the tx rate but are always reported with 1mbps as the rx rate The NS2's are all reported with a radio name. Nothing else shows a radio name. The things I wounder about are the radio names not being reported, and the NS2's showing a 1Mbps rx rate all the time. Hope some find this useful, and any comments would be appreciated. Blair Travis Johnson wrote: This is NOT just a MT/Tranzeo issue. If you search the forums, people were talking about this issue over 6 months ago with various clients. We are running 100% MT (AP and clients) and we see the issue across ALL of our AP's. Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: Steve and Eje, There is a bit of a forum thread here describing the issue: http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=24971 Tranzeo and Mtik are working on it. On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: So let me get this right. If you have Tranzeo CPE's you only use StarOS. MT does not work. Does Mikrotik even acknowledge that this is a issue and do they have plans to fix it. Part of the issue is I could not make Cisco VPN's work with StarOS V3 AP and a Tranzeo CPE. Had to change to a StarOS CPE. Now I changed to the MT AP and the StarOS CPE didn't work right. So I changed the CPE back to a Tranzeo, VPN's work great now but the Tower reboots. ARG! Steve Barnes Executive Manager PCS-WIN RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service (765)584-2288 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue... I do wish the Tranzeos had a ping watchdog feature... - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue... Odd behavior. This must be a mismatch in the protocol between the Tranzeo units and MikroTik. We have tested many different units (E-zy.net, Senao/Engenius, MikroTik, Ubiquiti as well Teletronics) and never seen this behavior you describe. However I do recall way back someone had very strange behaviors going on between Tranzeo units and his MikroTik AP. He had some Senao CB3 units and some Smartbridges that he swapped some of the Tranzeo units with and the problems with those clients went away. Not sure what the Tranzeo units are or are not doing when communicating with the MikroTik AP thought this been long since fixed but if it was the problem seems to once again surfaced. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:20 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: Scott Reed; Blake King; Rick Harnish Subject: [WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Taxes
Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by Federal law. Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal etc. this includes VOIP. Disclaimer, I am not a tax attorney nor do I play one on the boob tube or even youtube. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Mike Hammett wrote: Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Taxes
There are very few states that are allowed to tax Internet. Texas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#column-one, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#searchInput The *Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act*, Pub.L. 108-435 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_lawsdocid=f:publ435.108, is the current U.S. federal law that bans Internet taxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes in the United States. Signed into law on December 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_3, 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004, by George W. Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush, it extended until 2007 the then-current moratorium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium on new and discriminatory taxes on the Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes. It also extended the federal prohibition against state and local Internet access taxes until November 2007. The law's co-authors were Representative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives Chris Cox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox (R http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party-California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), Senator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator George Allen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28U.S._politician%29 (R-Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), and Senator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator Ron Wyden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden (D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party-Oregon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon). The law was supported by a congressionally-sponsored study commission known as the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which studied Internet taxes in 1999 and 2000. The Commission was chaired by then-Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III, who led a coalition of Commission members to issue a final report opposing taxation of the Internet and eliminating federal telephone taxes, among other ideas. On November 1, 2007, President Bush signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendment Acts of 2007 into law. It extends the prohibitions against multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce until November 1, 2014. Here is the original act http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_lawsdocid=f:publ435.108 Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Paul Kralovec wrote: Indiana is particularly aggressive on the collection of sales and use taxes, as I learned from personal experience. Paul D. Kralovec President Unplugged Cities, LLC 800 Washington Ave No Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55401 W: 763-235-3001 F: 763-647-7998 C: 952-270-9107 www.unpluggedcities.com IMPORTANT NOTICES: Confidential Information. The information contained in or attached to this e-mail may be confidential information subject to protection by law or terms of applicable confidentiality agreements, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:24 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes Well I was told by the Indiana state tax department that all communications including internet access should be charged sales tax. Although I don't know anyone here doing that. John Buwa Michiana Wireless -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by Federal law. Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal etc. this includes VOIP. Disclaimer, I am not a tax attorney nor do I play one on the boob tube or even youtube. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Mike Hammett wrote: Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] I want to port their numbers!!!!
If you take a look at the exemption they have to have less then 50,000 phone numbers or lines. I can't remember which. Do a bit of research on it and find the exact clause that enables them to do that. Most likely they are to large to qualify. Then send them a nice letter from a nice attorney. Also be ready for the long haul. They will fight it just to keep you and others from coming in if they are in the right or not. It would be a good idea to find some others in your area with a interest in this such as the local cable company or others that would want the same thing. Pool your resource and make it look like you and your partners are as big as they come. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com John McDowell wrote: Local Cooperative Telco will not let us port. What is my work around? Order PRI to our tower in their territory? We're working with VoxCorp, so they have to be able to grab those numbers even if we do something like this.. Verizon Wireless has local numbers with this company for their cellular, and it has to be because they have towers in their territory with PRIs??? Somebody have a solution? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations
Not to burst a bubble but the special type certification that is part of part-15 was created for unlicensed solutions. Most license holders are responsible for the equipment that is in use. Thus the equipment is only certified to meet special regs of the band, unlike unlicensed where the majority of the responsibility is on the manufacture. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Exactly, with that attitude from the FCC then all of my network is 100% FCC certified because all the radio's have an FCC number on them, I would just have to put that number on the outside of the rootenna. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Kyle Duren wrote: *Response: * Since the device is already certified, it can be installed into a final basestation without further approval, as long as the FCCID label is attached on the outside of the final product. However, if your company wishes to obtain it's own FCC number for the final product, then you must apply for an original FCCID. WOW! I wonder if this type of flexibility carries over to 2.4 and 5gig. I know this has been a REALLY contentious question, but if that's the response in 3.65, I have to question the reality of FCC views in other bands that are NOT licensed. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Comcast
I also heard through sources that Comcast is working on WiMax with a partner. Only got vague details, and I'm not sure if they've said anything publicly about it. Just, FYI. -Tony Mike Hammett wrote: http://techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV white spaces: Daily Update
You show that value by the economic impact of every wifi, microwave, wireless phone, invisible dog fence ever sold and the tax revenue generated from those items. You also show how 2.4ghz is utilized vs EBS or BBS spectrum, or any other spectrum for that matter. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Tom DeReggi wrote: AMEN, Jack. And that is the message we need to get to Congress, FCC, and more importantly the Press. There is no better proof, than the 700Mhz auction, to what happens when it goes to Auction. Save the WhiteSpaces, is about preserving the American way of Free Enterprise for small business, Enabling Competition and Choice for consumers.. The tough problem is argueing why the government can fairly give it away, after equivellent valued spectrum was just sold for Billions. Governement is big on consistency and equal treatment. Does anyone have any stats on how much revenue the FCC brought in for Licensed Part 101 over the years, so far? I'm just wondering what arguement could be made for alternate Licensing scemes. How can we show the Billions of value, that consumers would gain, if it were Unlicenced? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV white spaces: Daily Update Thanks for the update. This link might be a little easier for some to follow. http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/FREE/120719096/1007 Of course the telco incumbents who now own the cellular wireless industry want to auction the TV white space. They just snagged the 700 MHz spectrum because they know how to borrow billions of dollars to win licenses at auction. Licensing the TV white space would give ATT and Verizon a total lock on all the remaining spectrum that the real WISP industry could use to compete with ATT and Verizon. Auctioning this spectrum could well spell the end of the real WISP business. What is the real WISP business??? It is WISPs as we know them today, the broadband wireless pioneers who proved that wireless broadband would really work to deliver Internet access. ATT and Verizon consider themselves as broadband wireless providers also (3G is certainly broadband wireless). They just don't call themselves WISPs. The incumbent telco/cellular monopolists would just love use their big bucks and corporate lobbying power to finally kill their off their competitors who legitimized the broadband wireless industry in the first place. jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fyi. Boys and girls Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the Cisco Press Book - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Design-Troubleshooting-Consulting FCC License # PG-12-25133 Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 12:00 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Intel-based 4-port Fast Ethernet Card - StarOS
Honestly, My core is 100% ImageStream Routers. I have no problem trusting them to run, day in, day out, 100% As far as Microtik goes, I'm curious about the question that got pushed aside, what do they use for Dynamic routing? Quagga? Zebra? I ask because from what I've heard they're violating open source licensing with their MPLS implementation. I can't remember from who or where, and honestly I've never touched a Microtik, but someone expressed grave concern for their licensing. I personally would do more digging on that before I ever bought one of their products Just my 2p, -Tony Joshua Rowe wrote: This should maybe be a new thread, and I'm not sure Tom is making this point or not,, but I agree, would you trust your CORE to anything but Cisco? I'm not sure I would. Josh -- NexGenAccess Inc. http://www.nexgenaccess.com -- Original Message --- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:45:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Intel-based 4-port Fast Ethernet Card - StarOS What does MT do that Star doesn't do in the routing arena? I'll add that both platforms have the same flaw. They use OpenSource, but then close the system. Seems kind of opposite the purpose. On a possitive note, I have to say, Mikrotik has really innovated their platform, with a lot of their own code and solutions, to solve problems that couldn't be solved using the previous alternative popular open source apps usually used for those purposes. My hats goes off to them. But the risk that keeps popping up is... They aren't Cisco, in the terms of 1000's of top tier people to research and support development of their platform. Can we trust MT's or any small player's proprietary code, for the long haul? In the Open Source world, there is a clear answer to that, make it open source, and if the developer stops maintaining it, there is a way to get someone to take over maintaining it, without loosing the investment into the platform. I'm not saying companies like MT and STAROS should make their proprietary code into open source. But what I like is the ability to ADD packages to an existing platform. I can give an example, of a monthy ago, when I installed a MT router because , I thought the pretty GUI would make a good impression, but then 24hours later I had to pull it because there was no way for me to test the performance of the link remotely, easilly for my specific situation. I needed Iperf on the router. It was a better choice to use a standard Linux system, basic native routing, because it also enabled Iperf. MT and STAROS are two nice products, but this discussion doesn't stop there. For example ImageStream, even though a bit more expensive, they provide an Open system. Their OS is maintained and preloaded with a few bells and whistles. But you CAN LOAD your own code ALSO. Then there is Voyeta. Its based on 2.6 Kernal of Linux, and its 100% open source, and give the security of using a maintained OS (for example BGP and QUAGGA fixes). But you can pay extra for maintenance and quicker updates. MT and STARTOS, will stay winners for high end WIFI Radio CPE and APs. But when it comes to Core Routers, to stay competitive, they really need to open the platform, and allow third party modules to be loaded by owners or developers. Sure, there is the arguement that CISCO DOESNT DO THAT, but they aren't Cisco. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FW: Red Work Binder: Emergency use only!
I suggest we test this Red Binder out at ISPCON in Chicago. Who is up to the challenge? Muhahaa, -Tony Cliff LeBoeuf wrote: I have compiled a Master Reference binder. Inside this binder you will find solutions to everyday ISPs problems. If you are having problems with the FCC, difficulty dealing with customers, having billing problems, service problems, or any kind of problem, please come and get the red binder and it will help you through your issue. Use the red binder for all issues...it is guaranteed to make you stress-free and relaxed. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us
As far as vendors go, I've seen the same thing on our end, I'm pretty sure none of our CPE supports it as of yet, the only thing that does is our routers. I would like to say that Imagestream has been great as far as getting us updated with IPv6 tools, their engineers are working on quite a few exciting things that I think are going to help the migration of IPv6 into our network. We just got our allocation last Friday, I think out of all of our upstreams, only 2 do IPv6 on their own backbone. And honestly I'm a bit worried to contact one of them.. they're going to want to charge us for it. -Tony Bryan Scott wrote: Anthony R. Mattke wrote: Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our next step. What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on their network yet? I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on Linux and OS X. That's as far as I got. There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested. We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 allocation. The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was that nobody's eating their own dog food. All the vendors are making IPv6 compliant gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various issues in their testing). That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody deploys. Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it works. A big chicken-and-egg problem... After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would work. They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or couldn't do it. -- Bryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us
Well, some of the old Telco's don't seem to understand that things are changing. They still operate with the understanding that everything is special and needs to be added onto the cost of your circuit. Someone *cough*ATT*cough* wanted to charge for the ability to use bgp community blackholes on their network. IPv6? Oh yeah, I had to do some digging on this, its part of our MIS++^3 service, we'll pursue this on an individual case basic and need to open an ICB pricing request to determine the cost to add this feature to your circuit. #$$(*#@(@#$)(@[EMAIL PROTECTED](@# ahem, yeah.. You get the drift. -Tony John J. Thomas wrote: I hope they don't charge more for IPv6. Currently ARIN is offering discounts for those that want to deploy IPv6, and they are considering making IPv4 cost more as time goes on in order to push IPv6 adoption. John -Original Message- From: Anthony R. Mattke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 06:55 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us As far as vendors go, I've seen the same thing on our end, I'm pretty sure none of our CPE supports it as of yet, the only thing that does is our routers. I would like to say that Imagestream has been great as far as getting us updated with IPv6 tools, their engineers are working on quite a few exciting things that I think are going to help the migration of IPv6 into our network. We just got our allocation last Friday, I think out of all of our upstreams, only 2 do IPv6 on their own backbone. And honestly I'm a bit worried to contact one of them.. they're going to want to charge us for it. -Tony Bryan Scott wrote: Anthony R. Mattke wrote: Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our next step. What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on their network yet? I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on Linux and OS X. That's as far as I got. There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested. We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 allocation. The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was that nobody's eating their own dog food. All the vendors are making IPv6 compliant gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various issues in their testing). That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody deploys. Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it works. A big chicken-and-egg problem... After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would work. They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or couldn't do it. -- Bryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] IPv6 and Us
Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our next step. Has anyone sat down and done anything thinking about how they're going to meet guidelines for deployment? More specifically how are we going to hand out a /48 to each customer ? This is much easier in a PtP world, but with PtMP it makes it much more difficult to manage. Who is using link-locals for PTP router connections on your backbone? What about /64s ? Anyone see major issues with doing such? What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on their network yet? Are people running dual stack instead of depending on a gateway/tunnel? Or have there been issues with setting up dual stack POPs? There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested. -Tony -- Anthony R. Mattke Senior Network Engineer CyberLink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Akamai
Getting the Akamai servers installed on your network doesn't cost anything. They ship you the equipment free of charge and you just install it. More info can be found on their site: http://www.akamai.com/html/partners/network_partner.html Anthony At 11:34 AM 1/8/2008, you wrote: I'm thinking of doing some kind of caching again too. What's the cost for this type of thing? We only service about 450 or 500 broadband subs, using two different networks. I'm not sure of the cost benefit these days. thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai We love Akamai... especially during big Windows Update periods. :) We serve 12 school districts and they all seem to do their updates on PC's and servers during the same times (during school breaks) and the Akamai servers save us a ton of bandwidth and the customers get GREAT speeds doing the updates. Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: Anybody have any experience with Akamai? I'm thinking of adding some Akamai servers to my network again, looking for opinions. Thanks George WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT......Question
Dell and HP still sell XP. They are big enough to make Microsoft bend on the Vista release issues. We only have this month left though as far as I can tell. My bet is if SP1 doesn't resolve most of the issues with Vista that Dell and the like will continue to pressure MS for a XP solution. This being mostly for business workstations. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130657-c,xp/article.html http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17733/Dell-Resumes-Windows-XP-Sales-MS-To-Sell-Software-for-Cheap/ Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Jeff Broadwick wrote: Is it still possible to buy a new computer and use XP? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question Games. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT..Question We've standardized on XP/PRO SP2 for the office. We tried Vista and, although some fanatics show it can be a bit but definitely slower, that's not meaningful. The computers, themselves, suffer intractable problems with Vista with less than 2G memory, but with that memory or more, it's OK. (Why it becomes unstable under 2Gb is the subject of wild, physical arguments). We haven't had driver problems. We have had significantly more hang-ups with Vista. Not many, but perhaps 50% more. The GUI is, perhaps, more intuitive but it splits functionality that was, in XP, in one place into several far flung places. It may make more sense but drives the old folks (over 20 years old) crazy. The reallocation of facilities that were in XP-HOME and XP-PRO into fragmented pieces within an array of options of Vista upgrades is driving the support guys nuts. Ordinary users who had a handle on XP are now calling support. The removal of OUTLOOK 2007 from Student/Teacher 2007 meant that folks with a teacher wife and student kids can't use it for work. That just makes people mad at Microsoft. Since we stick with Lenovo/IBM for laptops, etc., we can still order XP/PRO (at a small cost). It doesn't appear that VISTA was a good business/technical decision on Microsoft's part but I'm sure it will pay off through the sales of new PCs. It's not the end of the world...it just appears dumb...really dumb. It turns out that Macintosh computers with Microsoft Office have been more and more popular and we accept that for our system. They have caused no problems...perhaps because the Mac-fanatics stick together and aggressively help each other the way early PC users used to do. There are only a tiny fraction of PC users that utilize applications that aren't available on Macintosh as the same or better. That argument doesn't fly anymore. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question Hi, Every single test out there shows Vista is SLOWER on an identical machine running XP. Why would I upgrade to an OS that is slower? Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: Agreed. This happens with every OS release... It's OH SO HORRIBLE... but then in a year or so, everyone forgets their fabricated fears. I've been using Vista for about 4 months and have 0 issues with Vista itself. Sure, I've had problems with vendors who are slow to update software\drivers, but that's not Microsoft's fault... that's the fault of lazy vendors *cough* DELL *cough*. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question In a message dated 12/9/2007 11:25:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: dreaded MS Vista Why is everyone so down on Vista? I have been using it for a long time, starting with the Beta Version-now using the Ultimate Version, without problems [laptops and PC's]. I think it is more a learning curve with so many changes from the earlier versions. Vista is here to stay and you should be learning it-not going backwards. Walter W. Stumpf Jr. Xanadu Group Inc. 179 Statesville Quarry Road Lafayette NJ 07848-3128 USA 973-702-3899 fax 775-667-1995 **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000300 0001) - --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
[WISPA] Reducing per customer costs
Earlier I brook out our cost per customer. Our Billing, Admin, and support costs are using over half of our cash flow. Is this comparable for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs? -- Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.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] max average # subs to a 900 AP?
60-70 on a 3mb aggregate. 120 or so on 7mb. This is with a majority of 1mb plans. So about a 20 to 1 ratio. That seems to be a sweet spot for our system. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Patrick Leary wrote: I'd appreciate any feedback you folks are willing to provide. I suspect the numbers are substantially lower than 5 GHz APs due to the smaller system capacity, but I'd rather not assume. Regards, Patrick Leary AVP, Market Development Alvarion, Inc. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Reducing per customer costs
Just to stay in line with the thought. at $25 per month that would mean two new customers a month or the profits of 25 of my customers to pay for that. Now if i say had 200 customers that would be 1/8 of my profits :) I have been trying to get my partner to agree to the dues since the inception of of WISPA. Even if it means going in the red. I can appreciate the reasoning though. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com D. Ryan Spott wrote: Join WISPA, $25 bucks a month. The URL is at the bottom of this email. You get great advice and answers to this email on the members list! :) ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Reducing per customer costs Earlier I brook out our cost per customer. Our Billing, Admin, and support costs are using over half of our cash flow. Is this comparable for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] What basic ROI do you target?
On another list I answered 6 - 9 months with $100 install fee and we retain ownership. In reality we lease to own all equipment on 36 month leases. On average $12 per month per radio goes to this lease. This is for our $40 or $200 plan it does not mater. 92% of our plans are sold at the $49.95 per month rate. So for ruff numbers per month, here it is per customer averaged over a 12 month cycle. (Hope this helps someone looking to get into the business)(P.S. I hope I don't scare you off) Hard numbers = will not change with volume Installation cost $75 (contractor) + $10 in misu. hardware = $15 to the good (we charge $100 installation) Customer Radio = $12 Sales / marketing = $3.50 Soft numbers = will go down with volume Tower rental on average per customer = $2 Billing and administrative costs = $7 Bandwidth = $7.50 Support = $7 Infrastructure = $4 Misu. (vehicle, office rent, utilities, etc.) = $5.50 Total per month = $48.95 Total profit in first year per customer = $12 + $15 (made at install) = $27 These numbers are supporting a growth rate of about 18 customers per month. ..Why am I doing this again?? So can anyone guess how many customers we have right now? (hint more then 100 less then 1000) So from these numbers we are profitable on day one ... granted it is only $16 but better then a stick in the eye. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We lease all of our CPE, therefore our ROI is 0 months. The installation fee ($99) covers the truck roll for the installation, so starting from day one I am making profit on that customer. We have been doing it this way for over 4 years now. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I am curious about how divergent the responses may be. In your answer, include just the cost of the truck roll and CPE measured against any set-up and service initiation fees charged with the monthly subscription fee. Years ago, it was not uncommon for WISPs to say they need a 24-month basic return per subscriber. These days I suspect most will say under 9 months. Patrick Leary AVP, Market Development Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I completely disagree that the government should have anything to do with our industry and that it is a given except in matters of anti-trust, managing a scarce public resource (radio spectrum) or safety. Anything else hands off. And that also applies to any other industry. I could understand regulating us if VOIP replaces the normal PSTN network for safety reasons ak. E911. This is never going to happen though due to cell phones. I also can understand the need for CALEA and agree with it, again for the safety of the public. Other then that I can't see any other reason why we should have any regulations on our industry or any other industry. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Clint Ricker wrote: The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except for the regulatory liability of ineptness. The Comcast deal, using Sandvine gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy that that usually applies to residential connections is best effort. Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear? :) (_please_, don't answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate. You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car wash. You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility. I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it idea. What level and what type of regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should exist on some level is a given. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The application is very important. If the technology that we had at our disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care less. Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use the better for us. Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can provide our customers is superior customer service. At this time we are behind on every other metric, be it bandwidth, latency, etc. We also have a very limited amount of resources to deploy in. Compared to cable that has literally 2ghz plus of spectrum to use we can't even hope to compete on a bang for buck approach. So with that in mind I have to agree that Comcast's is the only way we can survive for last mile delivery. I also agree as for a carrier / wholesale the pipe should be as dumb as possible and just pass bits as fast as it can. My main concern is that as a private business owner I am the only one qualified to say how my network and business should operate. No government agency or bureaucrat could possibly understand my business better then myself. Comcast is no different. Let the free market figure out how to make this work. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com David E. Smith wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some don't. My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, annoying twenty or more other customers. Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other service providers, and I don't weep overly for them. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks
Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many ways a partnership like this could work to everyones benefit. I would get in bed with them just for the opportunity to get at there customer database. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. www.broadband-mn.com Travis Johnson wrote: Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different everything. It would never work. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Like we didn't see it comming :-) The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change in model, or something like that. What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and become one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://broadband-mn.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711 / Eje WISP-Router, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://broadband-mn.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] Alternative to Meraki mesh??
Tim, I asked Ruckus about this and their upcoming mesh system will be for indoors only. Anthony At 11:21 AM 10/25/2007, you wrote: I understand that Ruckus is going to release a mesh system. I have not heard when, but I believed it to be soon. Tim ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Alternative to Meraki mesh??
Anyone know if there is an equipment line along the lines of what Meraki is selling? I've been checking out Meraki and like the low cost, self install, mesh technology, etc. but I do not like that you will be depending on their backend (Dashboard) software. Are there any other companies offering products along this line? Anthony ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] ISPCON - WHOSE GOING?
Anyone planning a WISPA gettogether? We're flying out this afternoon and wouldn't mind hooking up with people later tonight. (Dinner, Bar, etc.) -Tony George Rogato wrote: I'll be there Mac Dearman wrote: I thought I would see who is planning to attend ISPCON? We need to make a plan! very evil grin Mac ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] What we like to call a D3 moment.
To add humor to everyone's life I'd like to share the start of my day. At about 3:20 am, a dump truck decided to disconnect us from our 480 Volt 3 phase shore power. Fun? Sure ! Pictures available at http://mattke.net/d3/ Video now posted on You Tube ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5CZu_XBf70 -- Anthony R. Mattke Sr. Network Engineer Cyberlink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available til August 31 ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Managing your network on the go-go-go!
I have the 8525, its a pretty decent phone, but again its sold for ATT -- you can download keyboard software that has CTRL key functionality. I use pocket putty for ssh currently, and Mocha VNC for.. well, obviously VNC. Phone works pretty well, they are some firmware bugs with it. But its worth looking into. -Tony -- Anthony R. Mattke Network Administrator Cyberlink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CHUCK PROFITO wrote: HTC 8525 http://www.america.htc.com/products/8525/default.html Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go! I'm looking for a way to keep an eye on my network, and to fix some basic stuff, while hiking, or on vacation, or what-have-you. Ideally, something I could take to a baseball game with me, even. A laptop computer is far too big for what I've got in mind, as it's likely to double as a pass-around pager for whoever's on call this week. Thus, I'm probably limited to a Blackberry or maybe a Windows Mobile device like the Motorola Q, running on a cell phone network. Most of our towers are running Valemount's StarOS software, so we need something that has an SSH client, and that SSH client needs to support key chording (Control-whatever, basically). Most devices like this, a Web browser is a given, which should handle the rest of our needs (looking in on the network monitoring system, and a couple Ligowave towers). The ability to receive (and, maybe, send) emails is important, but that's pretty much guaranteed these days too. (Worst case, I whip up some email-to-SMS voodoo.) VNC support would be swell but probably not strictly needed. (Besides, it'd take forever to scroll around a 1208x1024 desktop on one of those...) I can't be the first one here who's looked at getting a Blackberry (or something similar) to handle basic network stuff remotely. What works? What doesn't? Will I even be sorta-happy with, say, a Blackberry 8700? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.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/
RE: [WISPA] Orlando
You're not only a member of WISP, but you're also a client^H^H^H^H^H^H manufacturer. (see older TV add for joke) -Tony -- Anthony R. Mattke Network Administrator Cyberlink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Orlando But I'm not a wisp...I work for a manufacturer...how does that add up?!?! :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carl A jeptha Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Orlando So that explains why you became a wisp, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express (See TV Ad for the joke). ;-) You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Jeff Broadwick wrote: I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express just north of Downtown Disney last time. Nice hotel, and it was about $100/night. You can count me and Doug Hass in on the dinner Peter. Thanks! Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Orlando I'll take Sam's advice and pre-plan. Couple of notes: The ISPCON is at the Rosen Centre Hotel @ 9840 International Drive, Orlando, Florida 32819, not to be confused with the Rosen Plaza Hotel @ 9700 International Drive. Use Kayak.com to find your best room rate near here. There are two entertainment spots within 2 miles on International Drive: Pointe Orlando (http://www.pointeorlando.com/) and the Mercado. (There's a trolley available on International Drive, but traffic is so deep, walking can be faster). How about dinner on May 23 at Maggiano's Little Italy? After dinner there are many bars available in the Pointe Orlando complex. (On May 24 is ISP-CEO). Why attend the show? The exhibits and the education. Lots of case studies are being lined up for this one. Hope to see you there. RSVP for the dinner so I can save a private room. Regards, Peter Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have been working on that very issue for the last few weeks and will keep you all posted. There are a ton of choices of restaurants north of the conference hotel about 2 miles on International Drive but I have no prior experience with the area so some input from Peter would definitely be in order. A few places have complimentary shuttles. ;-) Suggestions from those who might be attending would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: Now I really wish I could make it in May with Peter planning the extra curricular. Honestly, I would avoid the poker as it really does kill the conversation for the most part. An organized dinner as well as finding a decent bar that is within walking distance of most of the hotels, both announced prior to the conference would probably help to get more people together after hours. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
I would be interested in learning more about it. Anthony Broadband Corp. Russ Kreigh wrote: Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until the batteries are gone and need to be recharged. The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might burn up the charger. Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with before you start any modifications. We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution. Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too expensive. I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically. We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter output, or additional external batteries. Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete? Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net Supernova Technologies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paul hendry Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS Scott, Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery count. Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these things to see if they charged ;) Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the original configuration. Changing the quantity and/or type of battery risks damaging either the charger or the batteries. Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes the runtime. paul hendry wrote: Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each. Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100 batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I have out in the field (80w). It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and a 19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly. Now instead of 1 hour I get 13 hours. Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this. My goal is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a sensible price. One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to simply take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of the generator. I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go. It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 1000w generators and putting large custom tanks on them. That is if your UPS is not on the top of a water tower or something. ;) Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread. Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread Connectors: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=263-110 Batteries: http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Can we get some links to these batteries
Re: [WISPA] Form 445
My understanding is that only broadband providers are responsible to be compliant. In order to be a broadband provider you have to offer symmetrical 200kb+ service. Anthony Broadband Corp. Jason wrote: 1. Here's a question: for those who don't have symmetric rates to/from the internet (I have 1meg down and , supposedly 128k up, but often it's something like 24 up, satellite you know...) streaming just will not work. Can we store and forward? Or in general, are they taking into account the technology being used and its capabilities? 2. Anyone know anything about these (price etc): http://www.netoptics.com/products/product_family.asp?cid=1Section=productsmenuitem=1filter=3 they make it sound as though they are most of the solution: http://www.netoptics.com/pdf/CALEA_Brief.pdf Jason George Rogato wrote: Well ask a question and we'll see. Guess if I'm supposed to be the messenger, it's me. If someone wants me to go and ask ridiculous politically radical questions, then forget about it. They can just dial the number and ask themselves. But a non political real question is no problem. George JohnnyO wrote: George - who decides what is reasonable or not ? Is this a personal decision ? Sorry to stick a thorn in here, but, I think Mark's questions are valid and should be asked on behalf of WISPA. JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 445 wispa wrote: You actually think that the big guys will actually let that happen? Yeah, I can see it now, our upstreams turning CALEA compliance into a profit center. Anyways if you want to bring your own tape recorder up to the feds and ask them some questions, go for it. But the offer still stands. Any reasonable question regarding the implementation of CALEA compliance I will be glad to ask. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routers
Where are you finding those boards for $22 a piece? -Tony cw wrote: We use WAR boards but if it's resi wireless LAN needed, these work fine http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. They have Atheros chipset and are $22 delivered. Throw them away when they die. All the consumer grade stuff lasts the same length of time. Ross Cornett wrote: Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line of router out there for home and small business. We have used linksys and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best? I am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer their lack of quality. Your feedback is very welcome. Ross Cornett VP 217 342 6201 ex 7 HofNet Communications, Inc. www.HofNet-Communications.com HofNet-Communications.com -- Anthony R. Mattke Network Administrator Cyberlink International 888.293.3693 x4353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT hotspot
I could be way off base here. I dont run a hotspot with MT at this time but I have played with it. You might want to try http://forums.mikrotik.com/ for help. If i remember correctly when you create a hotspot server it creates a DHCP server for this virtual interface and thus it is a independent DHCP server for that hotspot. Then you could have the MT handle the IP leases. Also I believe that if you use MAC authentication for the hotspot what you are trying would work. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP for a single location for a free hotspot. :( Travis Eric Muehleisen wrote: What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active hotspot users. -Eric Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc. Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router. Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems
Allworx 6x can do that. You will need to get the software upgrade for sip gateway for the off site phones. This is a full featured PBX for a decent price. I believe it can handle 6 FXO's and has two FXS ports for fax and such. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Ryan Spott wrote: Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :) I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP based phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with about 4 phones off-site. I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do this but I am always leery of Linksys stuff. Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info. thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Deliberant or HighGainAntennas to Tranzeo AP's
Are you doing any encryption on your AP's? Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Anyone have experience with this combo? AP's are Tranzeo TR-6000s w/ 13db Hpol Omni's. Also tried directly to a TR-6015 with the same result. Have tried with a Deliberant DLB2300 14db radio, and a HighGainAntennas 8186HP-19. Both radios will associate just fine (signal around -65 or so on the 19db, -70 on the 14db). Run fine for a bit and then packet loss and ping times go from bad to horrible, and they will eventually quit passing traffic. A restart will sometimes fix it, but sometimes won't. I've tried backing down the power, changing the ACK, etc, but nothing seems to have worked so far. Have been working with Richard at HighGain a little, and will talk with him again, but these radios seem very similar, so I'm wondering if it's either something in the radio or if there's something I need to look out for, or if they just won't work with Tranzeo AP's. The AP's are running channel 8, if that makes a difference at all. Noise floor is good. I can drop a TR-CPQ-15 in place and the link is rock solid. I'm still looking for alternatives for the Tranzeo gear (cpe that is). Both of these radios seem to work very well and come highly recommended, but I hate to have to switch out AP's. But, I just RMA's my 6th CPQ in a month, so it's getting a bit frustrating (plus, the 5 other boxes have beenat Trazeo fora month). Any insight or suggestions would be very much appreciated. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 Office: (765) 869-5173 Cell: (765) 884-6009 Sponsored LinkMortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo CPE alternative
I would take a look at Deliberant. www.deliberant.com They ship and handle rma'spromptly, along with great customer support. Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to evaluate all of my options here, and thought I would see what other CPE are out there that are comparable to Tranzeo CPQ units (802.11b, built-in router, etc). Want to stay within that price range, but DON'T want to build a unit myself. Not that I'm not happy with the CPQ's, but I've had a run of bad ones (to the tune of 1 in almost every 10 packI get in here) and just not sure what's going on. I just got word of a price increase on the CPE units also (not the CPQ's though).I'd also like to get something a little smaller in physical size than the Tranzeo's. Not that they are bad, but would be nice if they weren't quite such an eyesore. Again, that's not a huge issue though.Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out. I've considered Canopy, but of course, that's an entire network change. Just not sure if I want to do that, and not sure if it would be asfinancially economical as Tranzeo in the long run.-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 Office: (765) 869-5173 Cell: (765) 884-6009 Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP
Ok I didn't realize that you where utilizing the WDS station mode. So you basically have a normal AP/station setup but it is just bridged. Are you using N-stream? The WDS-station mode really was designed so that N-stream could be used on a WDS / Bridge network. WDS - station is a proprietary mode developed by MT if my understanding is correct. If so the likely the issue will be resolved with the polling feature available with N-stream. The reason I state this is because from the information provided the issue has became a problem as more load has been applied to the solution. The solution is more then capable of handling the throughput so this would indicate an interference source. As 802.11 is the solution you are seeing more retransmissions as the wait-before-talk mechanism is causing high latency issues. Assuming the interference is self generated and antenna choices are limited the Polling feature in N-stream likely is your best bet for fixing this. I currently use N-stream over WDS for one of my main back hauls to a new bandwidth source and it has performed flawlessly for 6 months. This is using 2.9.28 software. It has been upgraded since installation and I am not sure what version of the software we started with. Anthony Will Tom DeReggi wrote: To be clear, Mikrotik us being used, and the 4 remote building are in wds station mode and only configured to talk to the 1 central master WDS AP, the four client WDS radios are not configured to talk to each other. So all the CPE radios only have one hop to the APconnected to the Internet backhaul. My theory for design was... I had a 10 mbps backhaul. The WDS PtMP would have 16mbps (54 mbps modulation), to help with waste from re-transmissions. All clients are bandwidth managed (priority weighted method) centrally on other end of backhaul, to also assist with fair transmission time. Also radios use CDMA/CA, with the CA also assisting. The question is, is this enough to let it work well with only four buildings. I'm starting to think that it might not be. But the problem shouldn't be that they hear each other. we want them to hear each other, so they don't transmit at the same time. Thats what 802.11 needs. Hidden node happens because CPEs don't hear each other, and don;t know someone else is transmitting, from my understanding. Part of my question is, Does WDS work differently when in Mikrotik Station WDS mode than a normal WDS AP? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Anthony Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the central AP. client --WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other data to client and passing onto to --WDS/AP--WDS/AP--Client (transmitting to local AP) In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor because they are all on the same channel. There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 protocol. This will create issues as the more load you have on this setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur. The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum more efficiently. At least that is my opinion as soon as someone actually does it. You likely are going to have to switch to a station /AP solution for this setup because everything is to close and can hear each other. This will destroy your bridge setup unless you change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc. One other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Background In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant performance degregation. A well know problem with well known solutions. Issue. How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation. How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it? If so, will it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so
Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP
On thing I forgot to mention is that every single packet transmitted is going to be retransmitted on all the WDS/AP connected together on the wireless side. With sustained traffic that would mean that all of them are transmitting and receiving the 2 megs mentioned. And we can assume that these units are not exactly all the same distance or under the same exact load so there will be very tiny differences when each unit will be retransmitting that 2 meg of traffic. I am not real happy with the way I explained this let me know if it makes any sense :) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Anthony Will wrote: It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the central AP. client --WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other data to client and passing onto to --WDS/AP--WDS/AP--Client (transmitting to local AP) In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor because they are all on the same channel. There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 protocol. This will create issues as the more load you have on this setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur. The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum more efficiently. At least that is my opinion as soon as someone actually does it. You likely are going to have to switch to a station /AP solution for this setup because everything is to close and can hear each other. This will destroy your bridge setup unless you change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc. One other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Background In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant performance degregation. A well know problem with well known solutions. Issue. How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation. How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it? If so, will it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they hear each other? My confusion is how WDS/WDS works compared to Station/AP modes. Example application: Using 802.11a gear. 5 seperate MTU buildings, spread out within 300 yards of each other. 1 is a Master AP Site, with an Omni, and a second backhaul radio to the Internet. 4 of the 5 have a direction CPE style antenna pointing to the Master Antenna. WDS is used to allow the radios to operate as true transparent bridges, and to pass per client (5-10 clients per MTU) large packet VLAN traffic. (Note: There is a reason we did not select Nstreme w/ Polling. It may have been an incompatibilty with WDS or inabilty to do transparent bridging with large packets, which standard 802.11 station mode does not support under protocol. May have been early version of Firmware, not sure if still an issue) Why I thought it might be an issue: Surveys show low noise. However, as more clients have been taken on (2 mbps average sustained throughput all combined), the Link quality started to degregate as if the noise floor was rising. As a tempoirary measure, we switched to 5.2Ghz (indoor only FREQ, which appeared not to have any detectable noise in standard 802.11 based survey tools, and was chosen because non-detectable carrier grade gear would not use those channels). Its hard to believe that the noise floor would be that high using that freq. So I'm wondering if the noise that I'm hearing is actually my own CPEs within this project? The symptom was sparatic higher latency, what typically would happen if 802.11a had frequent retransmissions (native prorocol ARQ). I can look at stats to see if there are re-transmissions, but that data is pointless, as what I want to know is, is the retransmisison because my own noise or someone elses. Its hard to tell with WiFi, as WiFi doesn't transmit when its not in use. So testing in the middle of the night, when clients and users in town are off, may not be meaningful. Its also possible, that I just have a failing
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
part-15.org but I seem to remember that they removed access to the archives unless you are a member. bullit might have changed that since. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Is there a Canopy mailing list that is active? Travis Microserv Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6 mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say that town is pretty well smoked. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon
Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has traditionally understated there spec sheets. The GPS is what sets the timing for the AP's. The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's registered to them. So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time. Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH or AP. The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that distance can come into play. The application this is used for is for a cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing device at every tower. /SM GPS --AP#1 / \ \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 --SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of sync with AP#1) Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to propagate the timing signal. But if you put a GPS sync generating device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough timing with AP#2 that they all would get along. One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the GPS synchronizing items. Also again as for the distance statement. 6 AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced. believe me the messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to not hear another AP 6 away from it. The two AP's that are back to back share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce any chance of talking over each other. The largest benefit that GPS sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more towers to be in a smaller area without self interference. If long range rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in the area. So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it. If more is needed you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 168mb serviced to a given area. One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower. I can't write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and explain it. Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill give you my cell phone number or give you a call. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI. What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, causing self-interference, correct? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Answers in-line Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can compare for myself... Trango 2.4ghz: 5Mbps auto ratio 8 non-overlapping channels 10mhz spectrum per channel -90 Receive level 15 mile range (without a grid) External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna $879 AP (WISP price) $479 SU (WISP price) Canopy 2.4ghz (regular): 7Mbps fixed ratio 3 non-overlapping channels 20mhz spectrum per channel -86 Receive level 2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level 5 mile range (without a dish) $902 AP (reseller price online) $490 SU (reseller price online) I am guessing your quoting single prices here. Now that maybe viable for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded. So that the information is available a 25 pack of the Classic 2.4 ghz Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea. http://www.doubleradius.com It is possible to get them cheaper then this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or Canopy). Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from http://www.wirelessbehive.com Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each other how do I do that with Canopy
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Yes, Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or has a canopy product installed for service. This is a $40 mail in rebate that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed supplied. The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola. The ISP is prohibited from receiving this money. My guess on this is because they will actually have to pay it for every single radio they sell Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of the fact that it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would prefer they just drop the radio cost by $40 but business is business. Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with mail in rebate We advertise it as one month free service. I must add that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential customer advertising uptake. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate program that's been going on for almost 2 years now It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for power supplies (they are sold separately) Regarding pricing snip AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) /snip CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to 25 pack: LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends December 31) Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10) 100 pack: Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10) Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0% Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price, so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI Yes...I'm back WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
No, it is my understanding that within the contractual terms of the agreement they are not allowed to directly solicit or sell my customers information. Anthony Will Travis Johnson wrote: Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone (ClearWire) down the road and you would never know. Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Yes, Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or has a canopy product installed for service. This is a $40 mail in rebate that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed supplied. The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola. The ISP is prohibited from receiving this money. My guess on this is because they will actually have to pay it for every single radio they sell Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of the fact that it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would prefer they just drop the radio cost by $40 but business is business. Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with mail in rebate We advertise it as one month free service. I must add that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential customer advertising uptake. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate program that's been going on for almost 2 years now It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for power supplies (they are sold separately) Regarding pricing snip AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) /snip CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to 25 pack: LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends December 31) Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10) 100 pack: Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10) Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0% Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price, so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear -Charles --- Operating Manager - CTI Yes...I'm back WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
I will agree that Trango prices are lower then Moto Canopy. The 900mhz can come with integrated or connectorized for different prices but they are more expensive then what I listed. I just wanted to show that the difference in pricing is not a world of difference that Alvarion. You have to take the feature set and decide if the added features make them worth the cost. I looked at Trango and even visited a network utilizing them for BH for their wi-fi network. Canopy's C/I is what sold me on the product. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Trango offers many different CPE (5830, Fox, Fox Atlas, etc.). They have listed on their website the Fox Atlas CPE for $149 for a 30 pack pricing. This is a 10Mbps radio and with a $30 dish will reach up to 10 miles. I currently have a 22 mile 900mhz link with Trango (using an omni on the AP) and a 30.1 mile link with 2.4ghz Trango (also using an omni). The quantity discount pricing you have listed is very close to Trango's pricing on the 900mhz and 2.4ghz units... except Trango already has a dual polarity antenna AND an external antenna connector as part of that price. How much does the price go up on the Canopy (Cyclone?) to get the connector? Are your guys having to haul two different radios for each frequency just in case? Travis Microserv Anthony Will wrote: Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
So does anyone out there use the Alvarion VL and willing to give real pricing and feature set? I am interested in how it stacks up for a BH solution. Anthony Will Broadband Crop. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS. When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and the customer does not tolerate it. IF a Canopy and Trango went to war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] vendor specs
Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for trango's. I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place. And I also have a local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage area. My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont have any issues with interference. The longest customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles. I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box. Canopy pricing: AP = $898 (Advantage $1554) Single pricing CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing Add $40 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified) Anthony Will Broadband Corp. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data on any of these radios: Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail Dual polarity 10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) Easy management (CLI and web) $149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) C/I advantage Fixed up/down ratio $490 CPE ($737 advantage) Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) 36Mbps and 40,000pps $1,000 CPE For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other. Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( Travis Microserv Jon Langeler wrote: Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better. ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS. When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and the customer does not tolerate it. IF a Canopy and Trango went to war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time
Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...
It looks like he is talking about the antenna ports on the mPCI card. There are generally two u.fl or some combo u.fl and sma, etc. He is stating that if you utilize the wrong port on the card then what is configured you will loss 20+db of signal. It also looks like the WLM54AG's have an issue where they loss some signal if you utilize the secondary port / b port on the card. FYI I have not used the WLM54AG card as of yet. Sticking with my old reliable cm9's and SR5's Anthony Will Broadband Corp. John Scrivner wrote: I suppose this information would be meaningful if I had any idea what you were talking about. Can you maybe put your thoughts into language people can understand who do not have intimate knowledge of the product you are discussing? I would really like to know what the differences are between the two products but I cannot understand what you are talking about here. Your help is appreciated. Thanks, Scriv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: After spending a lot of time working with a couple WLM54AG's, I know without a doubt that the main is different for a CM9 and the Compex radio. You can switch to the b port, but as best I can tell, you still have some loss as compared to using the main port. In auto, the difference between the two is around 12 db, manually chosen or forced to one port or the other, it appears to be well more than 20 db isolation between them. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:53 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation... Did not try the other port and the signals were lower on both ends. Mark From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation... Did you try both antenna ports? On the two that connected, were the signals 12 to 14dB lower on both sides of the link? -Hal -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper
what docket #??? Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: fyi Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:54 PM Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper Thanks Marlon. The example you cite is a real two-fer, as it also evidences the mentality of WISPs to be good neighbors and responsible spectrum stewards. As you know, the other side is constantly screaming tragedy of the commons ... And claiming only licensed users can operate efficiently. We appreciate any examples -- and also even simple letter comments posted into this docket, ideally prior to May 31. We'll circulate our concept draft comments soon. Michael Calabrese Vice President New America Foundation www.spectrumpolicy.org 202-986-2700 x327 Fax: 202-986-3696 -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:12 PM To: Michael Calabrese Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Snider; Naveen Lakshmipathy; wireless@wispa.org; FCC Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Stroh Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper Importance: High Hi All, We're working (again) with the New America Foundation and the Media Access Project on some 900 MHz issues. There is a push in place for making at least some of the 900 band licensed. We need some SPECIFIC examples of what people are able to do with 900 MHz that they were/are unable to do with other bands. Here's mine: We have a backhaul link in place to service a house on a hill overlooking a tribal casino complex. The casino needs internet access in order to run credit cards, track it's Bass Reel preferred customer base, monitor it's fuel pumps etc. The most direct path from my internet access to this house has just enough trees in the way that a 2.4 GHz link would never be stable. Unless, that is, we cranked the power up to the allowable max levels, even though this is only a 3ish mile link. As responsible stewards of the spectrum we decided to spend the extra money and put in a 900 MHz system instead. We need more time on the link to make sure that it'll be stable long term, but so far so good. We have plenty of signal for a 99.999% (maybe 100%) up time on that link. Best of all, we were able to use much LESS than the full legal power limit to make this link work. Please send any examples you can come up with ASAP so that everyone has copies of them. Please use Reply-all, don't just send them to me. Thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Michael Calabrese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Snider [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Naveen Lakshmipathy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 PM Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper Marlon - For coalition comments - and your own, I hope - we really need specific examples of WISPs that use 900 unlic band: how do they use it? Who do they serve? Is there something special about that frequency (duh - but I'd emphasize this to reinforce our push for TV band and also to counter the licensee interests saying hey, there's plenty of spectrum at 5 Ghz ...). You get the drift. Jim will collect those - for our comments and to share with our big company, high-tech allies who we hope to convince to file. BTW, don't be intimidated by 158 comments ... Those date back many years, since licensees have pushed this before; unfortunately, since Martin is no friend of unlicensed, we need to defend fiercely. Thanks! Michael Calabrese Vice President New America Foundation 1630 Connecticut Ave, NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20815 202-986-2700 x327 Fax: 202-986-3696 -Original Message- From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Snider Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper There are 158 filed comments. I would suggest starting to slog through them. --Jim J.H. Snider, Ph.D. Research Director, Wireless Future Program New America Foundation 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202/986-2700 Fax: 202/986-3696 Web: www.newamerica.net E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net My Personal Blogs: jhsnider.net/telecompolicy, jhsnider.net/citizensassembly -Original Message- From: FCC
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo BH
I have a Tranzeo 5a 32 link that is 19 miles. Signal levels are in the low to mid 70's and TX rates stays at 54Meg. I would consider it pretty reliable especially for the money. chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone had any experience = or with the Tranzeo 5a 32 or the 5amp 32? The claims are 25 and 40 miles respectively. Im wondering about reliability and performance at those distances. Hit me off list if you can advise.Thanks, Chris-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 Office: (765) 869-5173 Cell: (765) 884-6009 Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund
First of all we should all understand that USF is not going anywhere. Our nation’s telecommunications network is too important. Second with the above understanding we should try and push the legislation to account for the work we as WISP's are doing and allow us to contribute and receive funding from USF. I reed an article about some proposed legislation that uses a reverse auction style for USF funding. This would allow for the most efficient network to receive the appropriate funding. We can in almost all cases implement the same or better network for less then an established Telco. Thus this legislation would give us the trim and fit organizations a competitive edge. ABOVE ALL we need to be included in the new legislator. It should not be technology dependent but results dependent. One thing to realize if this does happen that likely every Telco out there would start using wireless equipment to stay competitive and all the effects of that must be understood. Anthony Will Broadband Solutions Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I talked (personally, not as WISPA) with the commerce committee co-chair's staff person on USF today. What it LOOKED like was said in the conference hearing I saw (and she agreed that it sounded this way) was that USF had paid for the laptops. What really happened was that USF paid for other things allowing the school system to buy the laptops themselves. In my mind this is a matter of semantics as it means that there wasn't as much money needed in the first place. We had a really good talk. She said that in about two weeks they'll be working more in earnest on the issue. Coming up with more specific proposals for people to talk about. On the white spaces issue. We talked about the ideas in our position paper. She didn't think that the idea that all TV spectrum should be open would fly. But did like the idea of using smart radios and allowing use now not after the DTV transition. She also seemed to understand the need for sub gig spectrum at higher power levels. We'll see where it all goes. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dustin Jurman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Hey Marlon, I like your point about the laptops, we really need to check and make sure it's outside of the USF charter. I think we definitely need more stories of how USF is not bringing tangible results to communities, where WISPS are delivering service to those communities self funded. Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Here's what I wrote up on USF. Several felt it's got some errors that need fixing. Feel free to fix this, toss it and start over. Anything at all. But right now, officially, we're doing NOTHING. And that must change guys. Someone needs to come up with a position paper for WISPA to work from. Right now I've got some access to some in congress and I think we should work with that! laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on Universal Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, members or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of the House Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help them structure legislation toward the re-working on the Universal Service Program. Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it available to multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in broadband as well as telco. The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government rarely makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we need to give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal to bring broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas. To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its history, how it works and how it does not work. We need to develop a strong strategy for dealing
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division Duplexing)? Thus it is a half duplex solution. In reality it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe Ethernet Internet Access (of course like end
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
hhhmmm should have started that with I MAYBE am wrong here Anthony Will wrote: Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division Duplexing)? Thus it is a half duplex solution. In reality it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing. Anthony Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE connection. If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different story. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, We do not see that on our network. One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be significantly noticed. When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell site, this does not happen. I'm referring to using Trango 5830s. You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized circuit based apposed to Ethernet products. With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction. For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater capacity. The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and Duplex. SLAs, Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc. the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith. So we find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion times. The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on a PRIORITY basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Matt, This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: 3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Chris, I agree with your finding. But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was the finding?) For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for those terms that they identify with. For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with. However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with DialUP service as they do with Broadband. And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable services. Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best effort? Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting standards for quality? We don't want to be identified as that. We want to be something better. Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing. And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services. In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term High Speed Internet? Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term? Maybe we should
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Well below is the copy of the apologies I sent to my congressman. I'm posting it here to just give everyone some cut and paste materials NOT to admonish Mr. Scrivner. You acted with best intentions at heart and are obviously passionate about this industry. Thank you for your initiative because I likely would not have know about this legislation until it was to late if you would not have posted what you have. Thanks again, Anthony Apology sent to congressman, It seems a previous message I sent earlier this evening was not accurate. After further investigation on the details of this bill I am in support of this legislation. I was mistaken in the fact about it limiting frequency use to 6 MHz but in reality the bill opens up most spectrum other then those 6 MHz. I apologize for the strong wording in the previous message. As you likely can tell I am passionate about this issue for our rural communities and have spent the last 8 years trying to deliver them the much needed High speed Internet resources they need. Again I offer my apologizes and understanding of these issues if you would like to find out more about how this issue impacts farmers, other rural community members or more about how local small business in MN are approaching this issue please contact me. Anthony Will Broadband Solutions John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require certification of unlicensed de- vices designed to be operated in that spectrum to ensure that they meet the technical criteria established under paragraph (1) and can per- form the functions described in subparagraph (C). March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM
Re: [WISPA] CPE...Cat5...grounding
Blair,Where can I get this outdoor, shielded, flooded, cat5 with drain wire for about $80? That is about what I'm paying now for simple outdoor rated cat5.Thanks, Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I use a outdoor, shielded, flooded, cat5 with drain wire.About $80 or so per 1000ft. The drain wire is awg 24 or so, but, it serves the purpose of bleeding off the static charge and protecting the ethernet port on the radio and the computer/router. I have had no ethernet port damage on CPE's or towers that I have used this on and I am retro-fitting my existing towers with it.I ground it to the home electrical system at the power injector when used with a CPE.It is not very pretty, but it works.Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Ok, I am searching for cat5 with ground wire attached. How well do you think a coax would work to ground the CPE? http://www.computercablestore.com/detail.aspx?ID=2098 It's not like I am trying to protect it from lightning (good luck) I just want somewhere for the static to go. I could break off the coax at the entrance to the house and bang a 4 ft ground rod in and call it good. Thoughts? Anyone know a cable maker who could attach a ground wire?-- Blair DavisAOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240West Michigan Wireless ISP269-686-8648A division of:Camp Communication Services, INC-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 Office: (765) 869-5173 Cell: (765) 884-6009 Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water tower install pics
I'll snap some for you the next time I climb it.Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anybody have pics of their water tower installs? I'm looking for both a railing mount as well as an epoxy mount if you have them. Need something to show to my local city council. Thanks in advance!!Jason Hensley, MCP+IPresident Mozarks Technologies909 Preacher Roe BlvdWest Plains, MO sp; 65775 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mozarks.com417.256.7946417.257.2415 (fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 Office: (765) 869-5173 Cell: (765) 884-6009 Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] COST Per Customer Analysis
If you only have 10 - 30 customers or you have a very large network with little saturation, then yes that is right in the ball park but every customer you add spreads those cost out again. I have found that it is easier to just take each customers cost to install and figure out an ROI per customer then other costs you put in a general expense format. Trying to figure out what each customer cost changes hopefully everyday. Another way to look at it is by tower or POP location so that you can work to make each POP profitable before deploying another. Saturation of resources is key in this industry. Anthony Broadband Solutions Mark Nash wrote: My partner has done some quick analysis at COST PER CUSTOMER. This does not include CPE hardware or one-time purchases...just monthly expenses that must be covered by revenue from our customers. Items like fuel, insurance, tower leases, bandwidth, billing administration, support costs, cell phones, etc. He came up with about $37 COST per subscriber. I'm not really interested in how much we charge at this point...just coming up with a valid calculation of COST. Does $37 per subscriber seem right? I think it's high (I've only given it about 15 minutes worth of thought). This is something, of course, that everyone should be looking at, so I think some discussion would be helpful. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Systems
I'm pretty sure it has an integrated antenna and an external connector both. Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that moto gear integrated?Anthony Morin wrote: I was told $290 for 900 gear by trango and it might be out by the middle to end of April. Double radius told me 212.50 for Moto 900 cpe available by the end of March. Guess we'll have to wait and see. */Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Tranzeo announced at EC-Expo that they will have a 900mhz CPE/AP combination available sometime in the second quarter of 2006. They are currently beta testing on their own systems in Canada right now. Didn't hear a price quote, but knowing how efficient Tranzeo is, I'm guessing it will be under $350 in 20 pack quantities. FWIW, I heard several reports from different people that the SR9 miniPCI 900mhz card is vaporware, and it is going to be six months or more before it will be readily available. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Read the title of the thread, (hint, hint) :) Wishful thinking, but no. No 900mhz $150 CPE. Jeff Sullivan wrote: Brian Rohrbacher wrote: but that sub $300 CPE that a Trango told me about last August never showed up. So I guess I move on Brian It did. Only at $150!!!-- WISPA Wi reless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ *Velocity Wireless* Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos -- Brian RohrbacherReliable Internet, LLCwww.reliableinter.netCell 269-838-8338"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CB3 to Tranzeo 6000
Is it a CB3 deluxe? I couldn't get the older CB3's to connect either.Does the 6000 have the latest firmware?Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone have a pointer with this? I can't get it to connect correctly as just a bridge - I've had to enable WDS on the 6000. But, when I enable WDS, all other clients on the 6000 drop and can't get access, even though they are shown as associated.CB3 is about 150yards away and works great, but it's the only thing working.Any help on this would be GREATLY appreciated-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo CPQ Opinions
Yeah, I got one back from RMA last week that had build 99 on it and it wouldn't link for anything. Tech guy didn't even know 99 was out. I held an 89r right next to it and it linked right up. I have to give credit to them though they shipped me a new unit the next business day.Thumbs up to Tranzeo though on the 2.0.1 build for the tr-6000's and tr5-a's, big improvements.Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ***WARNING WILL ROBINSON You better steer clear of any updates on those Tranzeo APs over build 86r WARNING YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED :-)Mac DearmanMaximum Access, LLC.Authorized Barracuda ResellerMikroTik RouterOS Certifiedwww.inetsouth.comwww.mac-tel.uswww.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)Rayville, La.318.728.8600 318.303.4227318.303.4229Mark Nash wrote: I've been using them for about a month now for a couple of smaller sectors. Had stability problems with the AP's that I was using (YDI AP-Plus w/Turbocell, operating as an 802.11b AP). I then installed Tranzeo AP's. I had issues with them not reconnecting to the AP when the AP was power-cycled. Updated firmware on AP's clients. Been running stable for about a week. Now I have purchased another 10-pack. The AP's web interface really cleaned up gave me client names on the station list with the latest firmware. I can't give you long-term statistics, nor can I answer your huge PPPoE question. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - *From:* JohnnyO <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2006 9:52 AM *Subject:* [WISPA] Tranzeo CPQ Opinions We will be doing a large deployment of CPEs in the next 60-90days. I would like to hear all of the negatives or issues people are seeing with the Tranzeo CPQ line. A huge question I have is will it act as a PPPoE client ? Any and all comments are helpful, Thanks ! JohnnyO -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900b mhz omni
I'll be in the market for one of these too. I've heard that Pac Wireless makes a good one. Anyone know of other high quality 900MHz omni in H-pol? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anybody know where i can find an H-pol 900 mhz omni w/ higer gain than 9Db?thanks, chris-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!
There are several 3rd party solutions to this I would look at www.lastmilegear.com they have the cyclone solution for 120* and omni antenna Anthony Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Trango Introduces New $149 WISP Subscriber Unit /- Lowest priced fixed wireless modem available -/ *SAN DIEGO, CA - January 18, 2006* - Trango Broadband Wireless, the leader in fixed broadband wNo, time to break out the soldering iron. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!! Do they have any AP's with wider than 60 degree beams? John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question
This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules. The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is multi point or PtP. 5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point. This is how I understand the rules. You are not technically allowed to swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio transmitter. For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or less in gain. Now there has been a lot of unofficial statements by members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states otherwise on a official document. Anthony Tom DeReggi wrote: Its spelled out towards the end of the document. 30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question List, Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP? When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular radio? If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna. Or are we limited to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this radio? I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to personal interpretation. Also it's difficult to determine what the latest ruling is. Jason Wallace -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Another Problem LAN
I would get rid of the linksys router.Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To All,I have another problem. I have a customer with about 10 PC's on a LAN. My config is as follows: Mikrotik Router- sB APPO - sB aBO - to ethernet switch- to -Trango 900 AP - Trango 900SU - (customer Equip) Linksys DSL/Cable Firewall Router 192.168.10.nn on Wireless side, 192.168.5.5 on LAN side. Router is providing DHCP on LAN side to a 16 port Ethernet Switch, and about 10 PC's connected.This works fine for a while then drops the connection. When i check the 900SU its fine, but no traffic through the router. I reboot the router, no go. I reconfig the router by the book and it comes back on line and will work for 1 - 6 weeks, then drops again.What would you all suggest? I am about to lose this customer back to DSL because its very frustrating for them. They don't want to go.I have simi lar setups using the smartbridges and tranzeo radios with no issues, for 6 months, that is as long as the WISP has been up.Any assistance will be appreciated.Ron WallaceHahnron, Inc.220 S. Jackson St.Addison, MI 49220Phone: (517) 547-8410Mobile: (517) 605-4542e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I need 100% participation RIGHT NOW! This means YOU!
The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From … Anthony Will …and Thank You for Your Comments Your Confirmation Number is: '2005929725855 ' Date Received: Sep 29 2005 Docket: 04-186 Number of Files Transmitted: 1 Anthony Will Ruralnet Inc. John Scrivner wrote: Here is my confirmation: *The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From … John Scrivner - Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc. …and Thank You for Your Comments* * Your Confirmation Number is: * '2005928723564 ' ** *Date Received:* *Sep 28 2005 * *Docket:* *04-186 * *Number of Files Transmitted: * *1* -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] RE: [Emergency-Relief] update from La.
Mac, My employer has preliminarily approved about 20 laptops to be donated for use at the shelters, when I get to the office tomorrow I will find out for sure. I would like to go into the conversation with some actual requests and where they will go instead of just estimates. This gives them some more idea that their donations will be well used. If you have time please let me know what type of equipment and the number of units, the current plans are for the SoCal team to leave Wednesday morning and to bring about 20 laptops. But I can ask for what ever is needed, printers, hubs, monitors, chairs, of course it all has to fit as well. Please also include as much information about the needs of the different shelters so I can include that information as well. Also if you would be available for a phone call tomorrow incase they have more questions let me know how to contact you. Regards, Anthony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Anthony ClendenenESRI, Inc. Systems Group380 New York St. 909.793.2853 1-1288 Redlands, CA 92373 909.379.8934 [C] http://www.esri.com 909.213.9211 [P] 909.798.2090 [F] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [Emergency-Relief] update from La. Good evening list, I thought I would give you all an update on whats going on here. Jim Patient (ST. Louis, Mo. www.jefcosoho.com.), myself and Steve Milton (Seattle, Wawww.isomedia.com) have connected two more shelters with High speed Internet and VOIP phones as well as PCs that will enable them to fill out their FEMA, RedCross and unemployment applications as well as assist in finding their lost family and friends. I will fill out the form that Bullit has requested of me and would have done that before now, but I just havent had time. We just walked in the door here at my home 20 minutes ago and had the first hot meal in two days. I appreciate anything that any of you have done/will do for anyone in Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas as they to are over burdened with evacuees. I have been overwhelmed with the amount of help that is headed this way. I won't turn down any help until we get these shelters up to speed. It seems that the shelters have heard that we are doing this and they are absolutely popping up out of the wood work. We had a call from 3 shelters in Tallulah, La. this evening with one housing 127 evacuees and had several more whole families on the way. I know that there is a crew coming out of (5)Chicago, a crew from Atlanta(7 men) some folks from Indianapolis, and (5?) from Southern California. When we get these shelters in the surrounding Parishes connected I will have completed scouting out shelters further to the south in need of connectivity and VOIP until we are out of gear or NOLA is opened up and/or Part15 takes the lead and sends us elsewhere. I have staff here in the office (Sharon) that is coordinating our efforts and fielding calls if anyone has any further questions. Please feel free to call. There is plenty to be done and all these men headed this way are really wanting to wade out in the water and get their feet wet. It will put them a little closer to the action and in a good position when the call comes from Part-15. I am glad to have all the help and all the gear to make things a little easier on these folks. Now - - I will fill out that paper work and have another cold brewskie :-) Thanks Men, Mac Dearman www.inetsouth.com 728-8600 Bullit wrote: Paul Please don't take this wrong, but some of the delay in sending out P15 support teams is because I no longer have a handle on how much support MAC Dearman now needs because of all those people taking the inititive to go there on their own. I have asked Mac and others close to him to please complete the P15 form about shelter locations needing assistance. Other than a few comments passing around on different lists, we still do not have a clear picture of what Mac needs and what he has too much of. stumpted grin You guys are sure making it harder for me to get the help deployed. Good luck and I hope you can provide meaning support to those in need. If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Michael - Original Message - *From:* Paul Smith mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2005 5:58 PM *Subject:* [Emergency-Relief] Community wireless networking advance team about to leave Chicago Hi everyone, I just wanted to let folks know I'll be hitting the road in a minivan with my colleague Rogers Wilson from Chicago heading for Mac Dearman's
