Inline
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>>You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about
>>that :)
>
> Thanks. :-)
>
>>Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:-
>>
>>The
Some switches don't work well with copper SFPs because they draw more power.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Brad Belton wrote:
> To be a bit more specific, we haven't had any issues with our generic fiber
> SX, LX and ZX SFPs, but the copper GigE SFPs do not seem to work. It's rare
> we use a
In a word: don't.
T1s are incredibly dependent upon timing, and due to technical issues, PCs
don't really do this well. They generally work but are typically plagued by
lockups / higher error rates than traditional TDM hardware.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Jason Wallace wrote:
> Anyone
Also, if this is for use for customers, a side benefit is that the the media
converter on the CPE end can be used as a good demarc point from which you
can do some basic monitoring. This is a fairly common practice for
companies doing metro Ethernet offerings.
-Clint Ricker
On Tue, Nov 17
Unless space is a major issue, it is usually much more economical to get a
copper managed switch and use media converters to go from copper to fiber.
-Clint Ricker
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, can...@believewireless.net <
p...@believewireless.net> wrote:
> Anyone know of an aff
If you're skeptical about putting $50k into IPTV, you probably need to be
looking elsewhere. Even rolling your own, it can easily run you more than
that. Satellite receivers are expensive. ASI to IP conversion is
expensive. The likely upgrades to your network to handle the increased load
is expe
Most of the processing stuff can be done on Linux with VLC and/or FFMpeg
(for IP to ASI conversion, transcoding/transrating, etc...)
-Clint Ricker
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
> We're operate a small cable TV company in a minor section of our service
&g
You can roll your own middleware until you have to deal with encryption.
Most IPTV settop boxes are provisioned via bootp to push out the OS and the
channel maps, so it is a trivial matter to provision a STB on your own.
Encryption, however, complicates matters a lot and, as Jayson mentioned,
even
CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address
and, as necessary take captures. So, once this data is collected for CALEA
compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal
proceedings.
However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CA
), then a few hundred dollars a
year, if that, per household for Internet is a bargain.
-Clint Ricker
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jayson Baker wrote:
> My thoughts exactly. A human right. Duh?
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
> > Seriously m
?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Tell that to espn.
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Clint Ricker"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM
> Subject: Re:
ed line sharing requirements (or, at least cast enough doubt
on them to make any investment very questionable), I think CLECs,
unrestrained by having a big cash cow of existing T1 customers, would have
made that space a lot more interesting.
-Clint Ricker
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Scot
manditory content filtering
carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases
in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the
other hand, have nothing to gain here.
You thought CALEA was bad?
-Clint Ricker
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at
e spending on
triple play packages over your way.
-Clint Ricker
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG wrote:
> This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West
> wrote:
> > One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hol
vities like unlawful distribution of
copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.)
Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok?
Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Right, which is why I phrased it that way.
For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are
very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However,
that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network
to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is
tly doable and as
> reasonable and fair as it can get.
>
> Bob-
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Clint Ricker
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> S
o amazing throughput if you
actually only use them like routers and don't have them do anything above
layer 3.
-Clint Ricker
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Scottie Arnett wrote:
> >If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of
> traffic
> >tran
tomers) because they can't get
bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month.
-Clint Ricker
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West wrote:
> Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service
> notice?
> So if it's just a matter
what the hell, do whatever you want to maximize
your profits at the expense of the public). Telecommunication providers are
guests on public right of ways, and the government has every right to put
restrictions to ensure that their guests operate with some vague pretension
of public interest.
TP.
Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit
torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever.
-Clint Ricker
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be
> modifications. You will probably
Then don't run a business that is essential a utility.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I'm pretty safe with my opinion. Get the hell out of my business,
> government.
>
> BTW: Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up
> with
> it.
>
>
> -
> Mi
d) or unlicensed
spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize). If they want to run
"private" networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that
they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment
rates and so forth are not applicable to com
Platypus is probably the best of the lot. Good support, very easy to
self-extend in terms of auto-provisioning, very powerful, and good
interface. Also includes helpdesk / etc... so it's a single, well
integrated package. Very stable and reliable as well.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Pa
Want to truly take nothing? Seriously?
The mere existence of the Internet is due to government funding. The wires
that connect your little corner of Oregon to the great wide world? Probably
wouldn't have happened without government subsidies. The same is true
around the world. A lot of the re
Insurance rates would depend on how often you use the sirens when late
to an appointment.
-Clint Ricker
On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, RickG wrote:
> Wouldnt that be fun! But, I can only imagine what the insurance
> would run.
> -RickG
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Ma
e
difference between Charter failing and other telco's / cable companies
succeeding isn't "business model" per-se (they all have, at some
level, the same business model) but is more likely the mundane issues
that usually lead to business success or failure -- execution, etc...
-Clint
en less), so there's very little
economy of scale involved, even by the largest of manufacturers.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
> >The only idea that comes to my mind is for professionall
your network core
Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Canopy NAT and bootP filtering works like a champ to stop the mistake from
> causing problems upstream.
>
> - Original Me
n Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Clint Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never used the DUDE, and probably won't because I generally go
> out of my way to avoid non-browser based multi-user applications.
> Somewhat of a philosophical bias, but avoids installation /
uto discovery and so forth. It
also has some very powerful report generation tools if you need to
demonstrate SLA compliance, etc. Mostly web-based, although has some
text backend configuration stuff if you really want to do some
tweaking / customization.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On
e providers are, in
the end, tunneled over a layer 3 infrastructure. Scalabiity and
stability are the 2 concerns of a service provider, and both are very
weak at layer 2 of any size..
-Clint Ricker
On Jun 15, 2008, at 21:00, Matt Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun,
Travis,
Just a few notes on the economics of this (and, why I think single
play providers are in trouble):
The ARPU for triple play is generally considerably above $100 per
month, most figures put this around $160 per month on an industry
basis. Typically, churn is considerably lower as well for
nd
(usually/hopefully) the software can work out a path back to the
Internet.
WDS? Don't do it. It is a way of doing mesh, but it doesn't work
well at all--not scalable at all and horrible performance.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Japh
del.
The small companies will typically be a lot less refined in this
process, so it will likely impact a lot higher percentage of their
customers.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just want to point out a coup
ourself if you're comfortable with that sort of thing.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:52 PM, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> did you ever get this resolved?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Niemantsverdriet
> <[E
Also, if you need help with Redback, just ask around. There's a lot
of people with a lot of experience with those guys. Faisal from
SnappyDSL who posted earlier could point you in the right direction
and hook you up with plenty of spare hardware and setup information if
desired.
Clint R
closet for when it chokes good"; I mean "swap
out failed power supplies / Ethernet cards / CPUs without any
downtime" sort of good. Using PCs / Mikrotik is good when you can't
get your hands on good gear at a reasonable cost. That's not the case
in this situation...
-Clin
cting something that it
isn't is an entirely different matter, and one that I don't advocate and, in
the end, is very detrimental. I think it comes down to the deliverables, in
that sense.
Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL
is your objective
here--by actually communicating with people as opposed to using language
that people just don't understand--nor care to.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On Jan 10, 2008 7:49 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do your radios have sub chan
This sounds a lot like an Mtu issue. Either drop the Mtu on the macs
or raise it on your gear. (probably best to lower on their gear to
start).
- Clint Ricker
On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:46 PM, John Valenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I use an older Mac Powerbook and just setup a new Mac M
It's definitely not an install for people who don't have a lot of unix
experience; it is a little troublesome even with a lot of experience.
That said, most of the people I know who do the paid support have a good
experience.
-Clint
On Dec 19, 2007 1:10 PM, Ty Carter <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
If you haven't already, it would probably be worth:
1. Checking whether the port is showing up on a physical layer (do you have
link on the switch?)
2. Check whether you are seeing mac addresses on the port (on Cisco
switches, show mac-address-table). This does require a managed switch.
-
Tom, some good points.
Blair, a valid point as well--often, getting _too_ caught up in the numbers
early on can be way to time consuming relevant to resources.
However, proper accounting doesn't need to be all that time consuming, and,
in the end, is the difference between a profitable business a
Eric,
I don't know of any in the grandstream price range. The Cisco stuff
(186) and the adtran gear are very rock solid but pricey; linksys
(rebranded sipura Atas are more affordable for soho use pricewise and
are quite stable as well)
- Clint Ricker
On Nov 24, 2007, at 9:18 AM,
I'd recommend actually just getting an external SIP ATA for starters
(basically the same idea, but in an external network device that you connect
to over the LAN via SIP. Asterisk can be quite randomly finicky about
hardware sometimes and there's a lot of motherboard chipsets out there that
Asteri
Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit
torrent: what APs are you using?
Thanks,
Clint
On Nov 22, 2007 11:41 PM, Scottie Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the
> torrent has to use a connection
yption) it can't use one of
the above methods, it will just rely on the other two with the
liability of less accurate results (resulting in some targetted
traffic passing unfiltered and some untargetted traffic getting
dropped).
- Clint Ricker
On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:54 PM, "Jef
are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we
> >>> really saying?
> >>>
> >>> We would be saying, "anything goes", we have no control, we can't rate
> >>> limit.
> >>>
> >>> The free
What's Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc's cut every time you sign
up a customer who is getting Internet access to get to Lingo / Slingbox /
Netflix?
You are making money off of them--no one gets Internet access to get to
access to their ISPs portal and only their ISPs portal.
What you me
On Nov 20, 2007 11:17 AM, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Clint Ricker wrote:
> > Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting,
> or,
> > in the comcast case, actively disrupting service.
>
>
> What if I want to sell
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" philosoph
hnologies.
Also, telecom is not free market :). It is, in the end, a utility, and, as
such, should be subject to some regulations and restrictions to ensure that
it operates under some pretense of public interest.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On Nov 19, 2007 12:47 PM, George Rogato <
have
access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many
reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a
per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower
bandwidth costs.
Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On Nov 19, 20
on the implementation of VLANs; you will also need to create
virtual interfaces for each vlan on the router and setup IPs and routing for
each virtual interface.
Feel free to ping me offline if you need more assistance.
Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Nov 18, 2
redibly harmful to your competitor's business model. If you question my
math, feel free to contact me offl-list--there are some specifics that I'm
not willing to discuss in a public forum.
Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On Nov 18, 2007 10:44 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists <[E
of employees start
resenting it as well. A lot of companies do have manditory on-call that is
not (directly) compensated so you aren't necessarily atypical if you don't
directly compensate or you only do a token amount. Just keep in mind that
you will decrease job satisfaction.
-C
Inline as well :)
On 10/27/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Inline.
>
> Clint Ricker wrote:
> > To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a
> > per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139
> >
To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a
per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139
& 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over
WAN outside of a VPN.
The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure,
L PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Clint Ricker
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth, Best place.
>
> How many megs and where are you currently picking it up / getting it
> delivered?
>
> -Clint Ri
How many megs and where are you currently picking it up / getting it delivered?
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I figured I would start a new thread for this.
>
> My question is with this type of thing happening, what wo
RF out
over wireless instead of out the HFC plant, but that doesn't seem to
be what you're looking for...
What problem are you trying to solve? I'm assuming there is some
reason why you aren't just using IP wireless links directly to the
customers
-Clint Ricker
Kentn
ng is desirable.
The Meraki's are designed, in the end, to be used in environments
where you do little to no link engineering.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On 9/15/07, chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Id be interested to see how they worked with high gain directiona
20-$30 per month can't cover sending an engineer
out to each unit, ensuring good wireless shots, etc..., etc.. Their
answer, for better or worse, is just throw enough units in there that
can more or less sort the mess out for themselves.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
h mesh that don't necessarily
have anything to do with a routing protocol per-se; relying on
multiple unreliable links to synthisize a reliable connection is
problematic on other levels, since, if your network topology changes
pretty frequently, you'l
plaining that there is no
"win-lose" situation based on malicious business practices, simply, in
the end, lose-lose.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/13/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clint,
>
> You were doing fairly well leading this thread until you
Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years
back the following solution that had worked for him in such
situations:
1. Go to the offending provider
2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away
3. After which point, you will have nothing be
There is some "theoretical" problems; I've not seen it, though, and
have had to announce /24's on a different provider for remote pops in
the past.
On 9/12/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess that's a good point. I may be able to get it, but will it be
> routable?
>
>
> -
Not to mention that you can possibly use these intermediate hops as
pops for future expansion
On 9/11/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> > Knowing what I know about the territory out here is that when Microserv
> > said (paraphrasing) "200 miles is the
e networks, the more you can do this sort of thing.
In aggregate, Independent ISPs have quite an impressive footprint, and
can offer an "on-net" (as a whole) offering to larger business clients
that is rivals many of the national guys.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/11/07,
nd, given the right wireless gear and
network design, it is definitely possible to deliver a good IPTV
service to customers.
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies
On 9/10/07, Brad Belton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please expand a bit more on your offering. Inquiring minds want to know.
Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] You're all going to lose ( I
Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg?
You're a trade organization...make deals with each other, share your
upstream peers, buy in bulk, and get your $60/meg to $30/meg, $20/meg,
or even lower...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/10/07, George Rogato &l
m
quite atypical on my network usage. For most customers, asymetrical
is perfectly fine, especially for residential...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October t
rt multiple, smaller service providers. I'm
interested in seeing if this is of interest to a large enough userbase
through WISPs to make it worth the effort in building in support for
those customers...
-Clint Ricker
On 9/10/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Bel
e the buildout of a better network
It probably is not quite viable for ultra-rural WISPs because of
really low densities and so forth. In areas with higher densities
(definitely MDU), it is viable and deployable
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/10/07, Brad Belton <[EMAIL PROT
If there was a fairly turnkey solution to providing television service
over your networks (ie IPTV), would you be interested?
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on
SMB customers
instead of $40 a month residential, targetting various schools, muni
needs, etc...
3. Bundling services--use the same pipe for more services
4. Don't even mention bandwidth in your advertising; market to your
strengths, not your weaknesses...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
to your hosting/network provider...However, I can
provide you some extra IP addresses for fairly cheap; contact me off list if
interested.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
> Cheers,
> J
>
> On 9/4/07, Ryan Langseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since you are on th
iders, you can probably get 5 megs for about $800 or so
that would be a lot more accomidating than your current setup.
What's the address and npa/nxx of your pop?
Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> $150 for a meg,
h time and money building your network and your customer
base to kill it over a few hundred a month. If you're too strapped for cash
to get "good connections", spend the time growing revenue (ie
sales/marketing) rather than cutting costs...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technology
On
y some sort of metro-ethernet
product is usually the most cost effective if you're dealing with 100Mb/s or
more, smaller connections change the economics drastically...
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Tecnologies
On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My upstream isn't v
Well, sure. Either get your mail server on IP space that does have RDNS
entries that you can get correctly set or route (via smarthost options)
through providers that do.
On 9/4/07, Clint Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, sure. Either get your mail server on IP space th
ervices either on a colocated basis or an outsourced basis.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/4/07, Mark Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space,
> probably
> your immediate upstream provider.
>
> Mark Nash
ations? Care to also publish lists
of who took questionable deductions on their IRS filings? Where does this
stop
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 9/3/07, Zack Kneisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John, List.. anyone else really.
>
> I was trying not to get into a d
first nine did except give some people a forum to pat themselves on the back
and talk about how their way is the best route to take.
If you want to make WISPA a respectable organization, spend your time
getting customers and building better networks, not prattling on and on
about LEGAL MATTERS IN A PU
a few times, is not
unreasonable...even at that price, it takes fairly good management and
fairly low labor costs to have any sort of a profit margins...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 8/15/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently it is only myself
nd they aren't always the best
in terms of professionalism. Most businesses that have some sense pay more
to get better quality...in some sense, if you price yourself higher, you
price yourself into the good customers. You also give yourself the money to
do it well...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technol
is a good example; correct me if I'm wrong,
Matt, but you pretty much target multi-tenant customers and use wireless
primarily as a backhaul as your business model?). Still, I do know of some
fairly rural fiber guys out there who make some pretty good money, so it is
doable.
-Clint Ricker
Kentni
one just stole my car", but does cover
about 90% and gives you an environment that will let you get stuff done, not
screw yourself over.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 8/7/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David E. Smith wrote:
> > Ah, but I'm at t
U and good margins. (IE you are doing a lot of
bundled PC support or such). If you are primarily an access provider with
small margins, it will not be worth the time.
-Clint
On 7/30/07, Clint Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was a member for about a year. In the end, I left be
hand, you can save
yourself a lot of time, trouble, money, and be much more effective by just
creating those relationships outside of such an organization...ie start
talking to commercial real estate agents, developers, etc... and set up your
own referral program and pay them commission for successfu
ever, often done for commercial customers in MTUs.
Doesn't really make sense for resi or small business environment.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 7/26/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes.
It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost
doesn't
va
see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being,
cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling
technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like
the telcos.
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett <[EMA
ut
of
many. It makes the job easier, faster and more convenient. The
difference
in job performance between waiting for fed ex and waiting for an email is
night and day. The difference between getting that email in 100 seconds
vs.
10 seconds is nothing. They'll still spend MOST of their t
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "WISPA General List"
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
on"Broadband"..
I thi
s got special
market regulation and so forth on the premise of creating a lot of extra
competition, increasing broadband penetration, and (vaguely) the promise of
innovation. They have by and large failed miserably in all three areas...
Put them to rest. Put the efforts on getting more people involved in
too heavily on
Internet-based applications, be it voice, video, or office applications, is
MUCH more the worry that our Internet connection will be out right when we
need to access it (or receive that important call) than the worry that "our
tubes are too small and will get clogged".
-Clint Rick
bandwidth (on a
consumer, point to multi-point level). If anything, you should be grateful
that you're not having to compete against 50 or 100Mb/s fiber
connections :)
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
On 7/24/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
America's Inte
e industry does need less regulation, IMHO. As long as there is
interconnection is manditory, there really doesn't need to be much more
regulation. Don't like AT&T? Build your own network...(as most of you are
doing). Expand. Grow. Acquire customers...you know, compete and
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
