I think Vegas is one of those towns that for some people, it takes a
while to figure out what they like to do. The obvious in-your-face
stuff isn't for everyone.But when I quit thinking of Vegas being
what I thought it was, and started just roaming looking for things to
enjoy, I found a
For those of you who are just ignoring these: I'd recommend you read up
on the DMCA safe harbor rules See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
In short, if you follow the steps under the law, you have an affirmative
defense against the
Mike Hammett wrote:
Then the whole collocation industry is up poop creek. Maybe that's why only
1 or 2 companies have servers in MT. :-p
You might be surprised I know of at least two multistory buildings
full in Billings Hotwire has a major installation in billings.
KOA is
Mike Hammett wrote:
Does anyone know of a single outlet or otherwise small Ethernet based remote
reboot and power metering device? I don't want to spend $700 on a regular
rack mounted one because I would never make my money back.
Are you looking to switch an AC outlet, or are you talking
Mike Hammett wrote:
AC
http://www.digital-loggers.com/lpc.html
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA
may call it
excessive.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Forrest W. Christian f...@mt.net wrote
Tom DeReggi wrote:
However, it also supports my core points... that you do not give 100% of the
capacity to any one user. (8 out of 10mb still allows some headroom for TCP
and Bandwidth shapers to self-tune)
You actually can permit the full 10Mb/s bursts under canopy. As long as
the
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
These data points would include geographic coordinates, antenna beam
width, transmitter power, antenna height, antenna polarization and
antenna azimuth, which in turn could be used to calculate D/U
(desired/undesired) protection ratios, geographic separation or any
I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others
will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed:
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up 3
for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in
Mike Hammett wrote:
The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that the
TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location,
height, transmitter power, etc.
But microphone users are not. The sensing proposals indicate that
sensing devices *must*
Having done two of these, I can say that doing the foundation yourself
isn't all that bad.
Dig the appropriate size hole, including undercuts, build a rebar cage
which matches the print, throw it in the hole, then suspend the bottom
section with legs over the hole, and pour.
If you want to
Just curious, is MT bootable from a USB key? If so, that might be
cheaper still.
Travis Johnson wrote:
Yes. Thanks. I found another unit, but it was more expensive for smaller
size.
Travis
Microserv
Brad Belton wrote:
http://www.memory.com/item.asp?item=TS1GSDOM22V
This is what
I half expect that the whole speed of light latency issue will be
eliminated sometime in my lifetime - that is, instantaneous
communication between any two points with no meaningful delay.
Unfortunately, when it happens, I suspect that those of us in the
business of putting up infrastructure
IANAL.. but, I have maintained for quite a while that Bit Caps, Traffic
Shaping, Pay-per-bit, etc., which affects *all traffic* the same is the
only correct way to implement controls, and is the least likely to get
you in trouble with the FCC.
The FCC basically wants to ensure that ISP's don't
I have said this over and over in various forums: Throttling/shaping
on a per-application basis is not a good idea. Bandwidth caps and
pay-per-bit are the correct way to handle bandwidth hogs. The FCC
doesn't care how you limit, as long as you apply it equally to all
bandwidth types.
Charles Wu wrote:
Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to
being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with
the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those
products are paying for the extra RD effort
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in relation to a previous statement
about CALEA being good for WISPA:
I can find NO benefit to it of ANY
kind. Nor has anyone I know of explained a single benefit, ever. It is
a mandate on how a network must function, a limitation to equipment,
software,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter how many times you try to change the subject to you need to help
law enforcment, which has NEVER been the issue, it still fails to address
the fact that no properly designed and operating wireless network can be
CALEA compliant.
Explain how your network is
here
- Original Message -
From: Forrest W Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Topic change - Trade
AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
The other thought I might have would be to give each kid an RFID tag,
and then strategically set up the RFID readers throughout the park.
I can also think of lots of interesting data you could gather as a theme
park owner about patron habits if each was carrying a RFID tag...
-forrest
That would be most likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] , or he could point you in
the right direction.
-forrest
JohnnyO wrote:
Will need service at this location. Please respond offline with quotes. This
is for me personally. I will be renting this home for 180days. I can do my
own install ! ! ! !
Travis Johnson wrote:
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
David E. Smith wrote:
How small is small? That will be the single biggest issue in deciding just
what you need. Honestly, all the multiply-redundant backend stuff and
virtual-machine-migration and hyper-scalable backends sound seriously
overkill for most of what I'd consider small.
Agreed
Not up yet, but we have a link engineered for somewhere between
300-400Mb/s full duplex at just under 10 miles with three foot dishes
both ends in 23ghz... Waiting for FAA approval on the one end.
50Mb/s with 3footers over that distance should be doable...
-forrest
Rick Harnish wrote:
50
Clint Ricker wrote:
Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg?
I'd be more than happy to pay less. Please let me know where I can buy
a DS3 or OC3 delivered somewhere within my footprint or at most only a
couple of radio hops away for less than the $50-75 I'm paying
Matt Liotta wrote:
You are correct that doing radio hops to the closest major market is a
good way to go, but in your case the mileage is just too high. How far
away are you from Microserve, which is in Idaho. I believe they serve
Boise, which probably has cheaper bandwidth.
Knowing what I
Matt Liotta wrote:
I don't know the area, but 8-10 hops sounds high to me as that is only
20-25 miles a hop.
Last I checked, 20-25 miles/hop is about as far as you can go to drag
OC3 level service in a reliable fashion, other than maybe using very
huge dishes on 6Ghz. I would have to do the
Sam Tetherow wrote:
Forrest, I didn't mean to be offensive in my email, or imply that you
are doing anything bad with your billing/usage model. I was just
stating my opinion concerning the increased usage of bandwidth by
customers and the WISP industry in general.
If I came accross defensive,
Sam Tetherow wrote:
I honestly think in the long run as WISPs we need to find a way to
handle these types of users.
We have transfer caps in our agreements which are more than anyone would
use unless they are P2P users - more specifically, the pricing includes
a certain amount of transfer, and
Sam Tetherow wrote:
As ISPs in general I think we are going to have to be able to provide
for this type of traffic. P2P is not all illegal movies. If we want
to be providers for our community we need to be able to provide for
the bandwidth hungry applications as well.
I want to be clear...
Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm speaking to my bank as well as looking at QuickBooks and PayPal for
merchant services (CC processing). Opinions?
If you are a Costco member, their processing is dirt cheap...
If you pay the extra for the premium membership, then it's even better
(no statement fees,
Jory Privett wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. What happens when your upstream say
that your traffic goes to the bottom of queue unless you pay an extra
$x,xxx.xx per moth? Will that make your customers happy? Can you
afford an extra charge to make sure that your address space is in
Jory Privett wrote:
Ok so I pay you the extra to guarantee a certain minimum latency. I
if I am connecting to a server on another network how will you provide
that? You can not set the QoS for someone else's network much less 3
or 4 of them that my traffic has to cross to get to is final
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Several times you have suggested using legal council for finding
licenses.
On the surface that sounds odd to me, just because
Why pay Lawyer rates ($400/hour) to do something that you could pay
someone ($15 per hour to research for you.).
I don't know what John had in
Generally the customers we've offered to remove equipment and refund
install for are in a situation where for whatever reason their
expectation did not match what we were able to deliver. Sometimes we
simply cannot deliver the service we typically provide to a customer to
that customer for
My understanding of how BLM fees work are as follows:
1) An empty communications building has very low, if any, fees.
2) As carriers are added to the building, the building owner is assessed
fees based on the inventory of the building. This inventory is based
on how many carriers and what
Travis Johnson wrote:
They are now doing audits on all of the towers in our area
(Southeast Idaho) and trying to put us in the cell phone category for
fees.
You are *NOT* in the cell phone category for fees.
In fact, you are most likely fee Exempt. See
Travis Johnson wrote:
So how do I apply for this status? Anyone have a quick link?
This is done on a site by site basis from an email I have from the
RUS program:
---
BLM is currently in the process of developing a
D. Ryan Spott wrote:
Do you read them the riot act? Do you turn them off? Do you collect an early
termination fee?
Try this line (or a similar tact:)
We are sorry you are not happy with our service. Unfortunately thare
isn't anything else we can do to improve the service we are
Travis Johnson wrote:
There are ways to do it without sync. I have over 120 Trango AP's
(over 30 of them with omni antennas) all running perfectly. Some
towers have as many as 4 AP's in the same band within 10ft of each other.
The point of sync is that you don't generally have to think about
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Hmmm. Would you want to change out 60ish customers?
Been there done that. Swapping out ~15 2.4Ghz 802.11b customers over
the next two days to canopy. We swapped around 75 Trango customers when
we first turned Canopy up. We've probably got around 100 802.11b's left
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx
stats.
What you need is something with transmit synchronization (Canopy, Wimax)
so that one AP isn't TX-ing at the same time that another is RX-ing.
-forrest
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
unhappy with the overall range quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a reflector, and
8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going). I’m
transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.
On the canopy side: Two
Mike Hammett wrote:
Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop?
Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both as a computing
device and a Part 15 intentional radiator - but only if it is used with
the antenna which the Netgear was certified with.
-forrestc
--
device for the unintentional emissions. Think of it
as two different devices - the radio part and the computer interface part.
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Mike Hammett wrote:
Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop?
Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both
Mike Hammett wrote:
2) Adding an FCC certified miniPCI wireless card with antenna within the
card's certification from a different vendor to a computer with FCC certified
components (either manufactured by Dell or DIY) sitting on a tower
There is absolutely NO difference.. You are
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
It seems to me like having Ubiquiti certified with various WISP antennas
would be far cheaper than certifying each combination of Routerboard /
Wireless Card / Case / Antenna combination.
That would be correct. If I understand the regs correctly, what you
could do is
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
Motherboards and power supplies are tested independent of a case - if it's
in a case, they test it with the all covers removed. Section 15.32(a).
We may still have an issue, however. Routerboards are not typical personal
computers due to lack of keyboard, video, etc.
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
There are already standards in place on what and how to do this for
the DSL industry, cable is working on a standard. The conversation
was more technical than I can recall word for word, but it sounds like
it would be a very very good idea for us to
George wrote:
And I should also say that it is being discussed and addressed by on
the wispa fcc committee list.
I'm working on the first draft of a response from WISPA..
Basically saying that this is a BAD idea, at least in those bands shared
with ISM/UNII users.
-forrest
--
WISPA Wireless
Richard Goodin wrote:
I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin
delivery of bandwidth to customers.
Since Canopy hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll mention it.
You really can't go wrong with a canopy installation. It works, even in
the presence of noise that would
John Scrivner wrote:
I sure thought I saw certs once on their site. I guess maybe you could
call them and ask for the URL to their FCC certs? If you see this then
passing those along here would sure be nice.
Tranzeo in the past has played fast and loose with certificates besides
what they
52 matches
Mail list logo
