Re: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas
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 whole new appreciation for the town. Before I described it in many non-complimentary ways and preferred not to go there - although it isn't really on my top list of vacation spots. And for the record, I don't gamble, drink, smoke, or do many of the other things which made Vegas famous... But I definitely can wander around and find something fun and entertaining - especially since I tend to be a people watcher at times, and also like good food, music, and an occasional show or two. Oh, I guess I do gamble, if you call throwing a $100 on a craps table to be able to hang out and watch some of the characters which show up around a typical craps table gambling. But with the effective loss rate on a passline bet of only about $5 per hour on a $10 craps table, it tends to be pretty cheap entertainment - which is really what I consider it. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] DMCA Takedown
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 copyright holders suing you for contributory infringement. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Power Reboot and Meter
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 in my Colo room in Helena, along with quite a few other smaller businesses. I would suspect we definitely have our fair share population-wise. The situation is this: If I'm a landlord, and I provide the power, I am a regulated electric provider, unless certain conditions are met. The two main exceptions are either that I pass the main power bill directly to the clients on a pro-rata basis, with no meaningful markup (which wouldn't work, since I also need to recover cooling costs, which is related to power anyways), OR that I include it in the rent, as rent, and it doesn't vary based on usage. We do the latter... That is, if you buy 1U from space, you get room for a 1U server, bandwidth, plus power and cooling for a typical 1U server. Any monitoring I do is specifically for my own use. I have a APC metering pdu in each rack so I can tell at least aggregate how much is used, and know that I'm not undercharging. But if I'm charging too little, I have to increase the rent. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Power Reboot and Meter
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 about a solar site? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Power Reboot and Meter
Mike Hammett wrote: AC http://www.digital-loggers.com/lpc.html WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Power Reboot and Meter
You may want to check with the local PuC rules. Up here, it's illegal to do any usage-based power charging, unless you use an approved meter... Mike Hammett wrote: I'd like a pager based one for my towers and I first saw them back at WISPCON-Vegas. However, this is for a server I'm coloing for someone else and would like the ability to charge power usage as well as provide the customer a web based method of rebooting their server. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:01 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power Reboot and Meter Does it have to be ethernet based? We use the NH100 from Nighthawk - works as a pager. Very smart reboot commands, though some 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: Mike Hammett wrote: AC http://www.digital-loggers.com/lpc.html WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] heavy usage customers
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 Canopy AP is the bottleneck, it does a really good job of sharing the bandwidth among the users. And, it prioritizes ACK on the return path as well, so it helps performance there as well. The other piece that Chuck didn't mention was that their CIR is set much lower. That is, you get 10.2Mb/s long enough to download most web pages, and complete most speed tests, but you can't suck it down forever. In short, you are allocating say 2Mb/s (or even less) to that customer, but allowing them to store up the ability to download at 10.2.So, in reality, it is quite impossible for a single customer to consume the entire AP for any meaningful length of time. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Whitespaces filing
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 other defined measure of interference protection, as determined in this proceeding. After the data entry process, ULS would notify the registrant whether the proposed facilities are predicted to cause interference. If no interference to a primary licensee or a previously registered base station is predicted, the facilities could be placed in operation and, as described below, the Commission's database would be updated to show the new base station. If interference to a primary licensee is predicted, the registration would be rejected and the registrant could then propose alternative facilities. Although previously registered base stations would not be protected from interference from subsequent base stations, if interference to a previously registered base station is predicted, the prospective registrant could then propose alternative facilities so that neither party would suffer actual interference. I'm not sure how else to interperate this section Brian. It clearly says that there can be no new stations that will interfere with an existing operator. Primary or registered base station. You missed the following portion of that paragraph: In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities could be designed through techniques such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or channel selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be obligated to negotiate in good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and keep records of their discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission.. The proposal from WISPA basically says: 1) If you ask to use a completely clear channel, the license-light will be granted. .. If no interference to a primary licensee or a previously registered base station is predicted, the facilities could be placed in operation and, as described below, the Commission's database would be updated to show the new base station 2) If you ask to use a channel which would interfere with a TV station, the license-light will be rejected. If interference to a primary licensee is predicted, the registration would be rejected and the registrant could then propose alternative facilities. 3) If you ask to use a channel which would interfere with another license-light user, then the system will notify you that interference is likely and will give you an opportunity to ask for a different channel. If you can't find one, it will let you register anyways, and you and the incumbent will have to work it out. And the incumbent is required to negotiate with you. if interference to a previously registered base station is predicted, the prospective registrant could then propose alternative facilities so that neither party would suffer actual interference. [OR] In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities could be designed through techniques such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or channel selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be obligated to negotiate in good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and keep records of their discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Raining on the whitespaces parade
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 our area. The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent ones for each DTV channel not microphone users. I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I participated in where part of the discussion were that the microphone users indicated they were perfectly happy in the middle of the adjacent channels. As a microphone user myself, I know that I'm happy operating on adjacent channels. So, say you have a location where channels 1 and 5 are used. We could locate on channel 3. The microphone users would end up on channels 2 and 4, since they would not be limited by the adjacent channel limitation.The purpose of the microphone users being in the database, in my mind, is so we know where they are and so we can either work around or with them... For instance, if they were on channel 3, we could perhaps work with them to clear out channel 3 for our own use. I think the idea is that you separate high power, nominally-licensed users by at least one channel, and then you can let the unlicensed users use what is left. Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. Ask many operators in 5.2 and 5.4 about how well they like sensing, and you'll understand why sensing does not make sense. I like the proposal, in that it basically says, broadcasters are important in this band, and so are the WISP's running licensed lite. Both of you should be able to put out plenty of power, as long as you don't interfere with each other - and since we can define where your transmitters are, you don't have to use sensing. If you instead want to operate unlicensed you can do that as well, but you must use lower power and sensing. I agree that unlicensed operation in this band is of interest, but I am also a firm believer that permitting even 1W using just sensing is never going to fly, just because of the interference potential - what if a device with a deaf receiver decides it can't hear anything on a TV station's channel and fires up running 20W? For high power, we're probably going to have to live with geolocation. If we have to live with geolocation, why don't we just discard the sensing since all it will do is reduce reliability of the service? Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be found that will work. Already in the proposal. Sensing can be used for unlicensed devices. Licensed lite is a great idea. There should be NO first in mechanism though. This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the prime slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again. From the proposal: In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities could be designed through techniques such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or channel selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be obligated to negotiate in good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and keep records of their discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission. Just think about how many mics could cover the Indy 500 if they effectively had 1000 channels available in every 6 MHz TV channel!?!? In reality, existing products are nearly this dense. The Microphone users are just worried about having thousands of 'baby monitors' in their space. One poorly designed 'baby monitor' could take out dozens of microphones at an event. As long as the Microphone users can set their gear to a frequency and have some assurance that an interferer isn't going to come up on-channel, they will be happy. We also need to set max channel sizes. I agree in principle... I would like to see an eirp per channel related to the width. That is, the narrower the channel, the more power. The problem today is that if you spread out to a 40mhz wide channel, you can get more bandwidth just because you are limited to power. If you were able to increase your power such that higher modulations were able to work in a narrow channel, I suspect that people would be using smaller channels. Most of the wide channels I use today have to do more with total bandwidth needs for the link distances. Never mind the fact that most of us that need the TV band's can't use the 5.4 band due to it's low power levels. And that many of the people that can use the 5.4 band find it unusable due to DFS (sensing). Unlicensed whitespaces devices should ONLY be allowed to connect to a registered base station. It should be nearly impossible to use whitespaces for home/office WLANs. Assuming that the FCC sticks to very low power (tens of mW) for
Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
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* get out of the way of the microphones. So, the devices must sense any of dozens of types of microphones. You could have service which works perfectly well, and then the church down the street from your AP decides to turn a microphone on and now you have to move to another channel, if one is available. To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels. Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations. If I try to use channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out. Sensing should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would permit. The database would take into account worst case actions. The sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing. I would expect that there would be some future rulemaking if this became an issue to permit engineered AP's within a certain band. The FCC is well aware of geographical and RF engineering issues which permit closer collocation than would be expected by drawing circles on a map. Under the wispa proposal, you would onlyhave access to channels 4, 13-24, 28-30, 46-48, and 51 anyways.. Heck, that's only 114Mhz, or 19 6Mhz channels. With 20W of output power, and very little Part-15 noise you should be able to easily accomplish 50Mb/s/channel, or 950Mb/s aggregate How much bandwidth can a microphone really use? Not much. In the dozen(s) of khz range, not Mhz. Some spread spectrum ones use more, but they are also effectively lower power. I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep it similar to 5.1 GHz rules... a power so low it's practically useless. Exactly. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Trylon Titan Foundation Work
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 see pictures of one of these, I can provide them. -forrest 3-dB Networks wrote: I am working on a project that is going to involve installing a Trylon Titan 40' tower. I'm really not interested in pouring the foundation, does anyone know what it would cost to have a local concrete company pour it (rough estimate. I know its going to vary). Anyone know what a rough guess would be to have a tower company build the tower? Thanks in advance! Daniel White 3-dB Networks WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] MT DOMs
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 you're looking for, right? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:30 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT DOMs I did a search for sata dom and found one or two. They are out there, but I haven't purchased yet. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] MT DOMs Hi, We have used a lot of the PQI DOM (Disk on Module) units for our Mikrotik installations in x86 systems. However, some of the newer systemboards don't even have IDE on them, only SATA. Does anyone know a good source for the same type of module, but in a SATA form factor? thanks, Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Satellite internet
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 to carry bits to customers will be out a job - as I suspect the solution will be a pair of entangled particles which will pass data equally well across the universe as across the street. At which point, the ISP's will be the people with a BIG warehouse somewhere holding one end of each entangled particle pair and routing between them. Until then, I'll be happy to take the bet right alongside Chuck that any geostationary based satellite service will have a ping time in the hundreds of milliseconds. -forrest Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: I'll bet its ping times are still in the hundreds of milliseconds. - Original Message - From: Aaron D. Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Satellite internet Actually - the iDirect (NO CONNECTION TO US) has a product comparable to residential cable based broadband over sitcom unit - V E R Y Expensive (on the order of $k's per month) Aaron D. Osgood Streamline Solutions L.L.C P.O. Box 6115 Falmouth, ME 04105 TEL: 207-781-5561 FAX: 207-781-8067 MOBILE: 207-831-5829 PAGE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOLIM: OzCom1 ICQ: 206889374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://streamlinesolutionsllc.blogspot.com/ http://www.streamline-solutions.net http://www.WMDaWARe.com Introducing Efficiency to Business since 1986. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Satellite internet They all suck for latency. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Satellite internet I have a customer looking for enterprise quality ( his words) satellite service. Money is not really an issue.ooling for a couple of Megs guaranteed. Any suggestions? Tnx Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Story on Telco Bit Caps
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 block specific applications from their network. That is, the FCC has stated that customers have the right to use bittorrent on our networks, whether we like it or not. What they haven't said anything about is our ability to charge customers for usage, so including only a specific amount of transfer is perfectly acceptable. -forrest Charles Wyble wrote: Any telcom lawyers on the list who can comment on the legality of bandwidth caps? Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the various laws/regulations this seems to be very close to illegal if not outrightly so. However I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I should chat with the EFF. Thanks for the link Jeff! Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080822/tec_internet_caps.html?.v=2 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
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. I believe the FCC's position is simple: If you are a internet provider, you have to carry all types of traffic indiscriminately. The FCC is *not* going to prevent blockage of ports and other limiting for legitimate network management reasons. Preventing the use of bandwidth hog applications to fix your broken price model and resulting inadequate network is not going to be considered a valid reason for blocking or limiting one service over another. Responding to a virus attack, or preventing spam or similar are valid reasons for performing at least temporary blocking. But if your blocking gets in the way of a legitimate application, you need to be prepared to resolve any issues that come up. All the FCC cares about is that the ISP's don't get to prevent a legitimate application from operating across their network. A good example would be the widespread port 25 blocking which occurs. It doesn't prevent legitimate mail from flowing (it is easy to configure around), but it does prevent spammers from using a network to spew mail out to the world. -forrest Larry Yunker wrote: It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for its P2P throttling. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [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/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
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 put into developing a more WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi Well, you might be surprised how many Canopy/Trango/Alvarion wisps are deploying Nanostations where the RoI on a normal AP isn't in line. We're actually deploying Nanostations to cover those situations where you have 2-3 subs you can't see from any of your AP's, but a neighbor's house can see both one of your AP's and the subs. Basically we're adding a Nanostation to a standard Canopy Install... so for the cost of the Nanostation, we gain the ability to cover those subscribers. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Topic change - Trade Association Was: Report: FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
[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, topology, and redundancy, and an absurd notion in the first place. It is a direct requirement to dumb-down and overbuild bandwidth, with NO return of ANY kind, financial or otherwise. From my perspective, almost everyone in the WISP industry got broadsided by the whole CALEA thing... But by the time everyone was aware of the requirements, it was too late to do anything meaningful as far as the rules themselves. What WISPA did was diffuse a potentially very bad and very expensive situation for WISP's. In short, the standards which WISPA developed and got approved basically says that you have to be able to packet sniff the data and provide it to the LEA. One actual statement in the APPROVED standard says: In unusual cases it may be impossible to perform one or more of these functions. The WISP is expected to make a best effort attempt to satisfy these requirements. It doesn't say you have to redesign your network. It doesn't say you have to dumb down a network. It doesn't say you have to overbuild bandwidth. Go ahead read the standard.. and realize that the ability to comply with this very easy to comply with standard is your safe harbor all thanks to the hard work provided by WISPA. You can choose how much you want to do to prepare. True, you may have to go put a packet sniffer at an AP site in response to a intercept request, but I suspect that would have been the case before CALEA as well. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
[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 designed such that you can't go to an AP site and insert a packet sniffer and gather all of the internet traffic for a specific customer attached to that AP - excluding traffic between two customers on the same AP. That is all that is required for CALEA compliance, thanks to WISPA. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Topic change - Trade AssociationWas:Report:FCCtoPunishComcast Over Web Blocking
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Or at least acting obtuse? Any competent network engineer is capable of inserting a packet sniffer at the AP site. Especially one who is capable of engineering a properly engineered network, as you obviously know so much about. Most of the time it involves a hub (or a managed switch capable of mirroring a port - but a dumb ethernet switch) placed between the AP and the rest of the network. If you are using the same physical hardware for the AP and the BH, you may need to separate these functions out into two separate pieces of hardware so you can sniff the traffic between them - but like I said, any decent network engineer should be able to understand the concepts of how to make this work. -forrest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a better idea. Explain how you do that. insert witty tagline 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: 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 designed such that you can't go to an AP site and insert a packet sniffer and gather all of the internet traffic for a specific customer attached to that AP - excluding traffic between two customers on the same AP. That is all that is required for CALEA compliance, thanks to WISPA. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] ekahau for missing children
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 Rogelio wrote: On a conference call today, someone asked if I knew of a solution that a large theme park chain might use to locate missing children. (Not really knowing the market, I (off the cuff) suggested they look at Ekahau. But I told them that wasn't my thing and that I'd have to connect them with someone else who did.) If anyone from this list would like for me to connect you with them, I can certainly try. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Service Needed in San Juan
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 ! ! ! ! and prob have the equipment for it also quote accordingly :) Parque Montebello street 1 A-19 Trujillo Alto Puerto Rico 00976 Regards, JohnnyO 337.368.7188 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Akamai
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 GREAT speeds doing the updates. What did you have to go through to get a set for your network? -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Mail server setup
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 We use a single Pentium 4 machine, plus a NFS server on the backend to provide service to something like 7000 mailboxes in our environment.FreeBSD/Qmail/Spamassassin/etc. For values of small much less than what we are running, I would really be outsourcing all of this elsewhere Mail is a pain, and I'd really prefer to outsource it.. But with the going rate for email hosting being such that I could hire a person full time to just run the mail server, we keep it in house... -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Moto Spectra lite
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 Meg Full Duplex? 100 total? Are dish sizes a problem? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CHUCK PROFITO Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Moto Spectra lite Ok, what freq? 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 Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Moto Spectra lite Dragonwave Horizon Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CHUCK PROFITO Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:25 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Moto Spectra lite RICK, What would you recommend to transport a 50 meg back haul pipe 23 miles? 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 Rick Harnish Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Moto Spectra lite I have a couple of these links running about 142 Meg combined RX and TX. Just make sure you use the proper antennas for the path to get maximum bandwidth. The lower the power settings, the more bandwidth you will get. Rick Harnish -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:14 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Moto Spectra lite Hi- Im looking at the Moto spectra lite units for a link that's just a hair over 1 mile, clear LOS. Vendor spec says they do 150 mb. What actual throughput have others seen using this product? I'm looking for a product that will deliver greater than 70 mb and am considering the spectra lite and spectra series. Thanks Chris Cooper Intelliwave WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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 Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date: 12/7/2007 1:11 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date: 12/7/2007 1:11 PM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date: 12/7/2007 1:11 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503
Re: [WISPA] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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 now (right now I have two full DS3's - one is around $50/meg and the other is around $75/meg). If you're domain is correctly registered, you're ~50 miles from Atlanta. I'm ~400-600 miles from Salt Lake City, Seattle, or Denver - take your pick. I'm *lucky* to get it at $50/meg. If I was paying loop, it would be more. -forrest ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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 know about the territory out here is that when Microserv said (paraphrasing) 200 miles is the cheap bandwidth, they probably mean Salt Lake City. It's 200 miles from us to him, and just guessing, there would probably be around 8-10 hops to get to him, if we got the *right* sites. At easily $200/month per site - since these are prime sites, this adds $2K of backhaul just go get to Idaho Falls. Then you have to add the 10 hops @20K/hop worth of radios (200K), and pay for them over 36 months (~6K/month), so doing this you end up paying 8K/month for loop, which on a OC3 would equate to $51/meg of loop costs. That's more than I'm paying for bits delivered *here*. The point I was making is that $20/meg isn't available to everyone. Loops are still the expensive part of the whole thing. $50-75 seems to be the sweet spot for modestly populated rural areas, whether that's Helena, MT, or Idaho Falls, ID, or Florence, OR. And I would venture that you *should* be able to find $75/meg bandwidth within a couple of radio hops from about anywhere in the country (note I said *about*). -forrest ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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 link math. Regardless, your ~6K/month figure would go away after 3 years using your numbers dropping your total outlay to 2k/month getting you to $13/meg. Nope, after 3 years, you get to replace the equipment since either you need more bandwidth or something else has changed. :( I think I mentioned this in my other reply... 200 miles is how far I have to go to to be able to share with another largish provider (which was suggested by another person on the list) which may be able to combine with to get a bulk purchase. I expect the cheapest I could buy in Idaho Falls would be on par with what I can get here... I suspect there's another 200 mile link to get to the $20/meg bandwidth. The other piece of this is logistics... This path crosses the continental divide once, and gets close at least 2 other times (not technically across the divide but on the ridgeline which is the divide). I don't like to drive on the *Intererstate* for about 4 (or more) months out of the year down this path... I can only imagine trying to maintain this link. 4 Hours of interstate driving in good weather from end-to-end. *Then* you get to figure out how to get to some of these sites. No thank you. The real point of this was to refute the suggestion was that I could somehow magically join up with others to get a bulk purchase going and get my price down to $20/meg. I've actually priced bandwidth out to the OC-12 pricing here in the local area with either Global Crossing, or 360 Networks, and am currently working on pricing with Sprint if I drag fiber to their switch facility here in town. Believe me, it isn't $20/meg even at the OC-12 level. The transport costs something, and these providers have to include that cost in their pricing. There are two things that amaze me: 1) Providers in or near the big cities which assume that everyone can get bandwidth for $20/meg or less if they just buy enough, since that is the economics there so it must be everywhere and 2) Small providers which are paying $5-600/T1 (with a half-dozen T's) when they could add a site or two to get over the hill to the largest nearby town where bandwidth is under $100/meg. This is all a game of where can you get the bandwidth at a given cost and how much will it cost to get it to you. Not everyone can find $20/meg bandwith. I've noticed that there are 3 main tiers today... $20/meg in the biggest of cities where there is one or more major peering points/exchanges and where almost every provider has a presence, $50-75/meg in most cities with a population of the metro bowl of around 50K and larger, and $600/T1 in the rest of the US. There is also the fourth tier which is where there is a independent ILEC who wants to screw you for all it is worth since you are the competition, which I won't even venture into.If you live in the $600/T1 tier, you should be thinking about where the $50-75/meg (or $20/meg) bandwidth is and how to get there, and how much it will cost. This goes equally well for people in my category where we are paying $50-75/meg for bandwidth. Yes, smallish ISP's should be looking at friendly neighbors to leverage paths and/or purchasing power. And, you shouldn't restrict yourself to wireless technologies... sometimes you can find a source for a PtP or frame relay/ATM DS3 to the larger cities for a screaming deal. But, either making the assumption that $75/meg isn't a good price for a given WISP, or that $600/T1 is the best that you can do since that is the cheapest you can find it delivered (without investigating the options) both require some re-thinking. -forrest ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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, I apologize.. That wasn't my intent. I just wanted to clarify that, in general, we're trying to rid ourselves of exactly the same people that the cable companies are ridding themselves of - those which expect a full bore pipe for less than it costs us to purchase the bandwidth. I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that bandwidth usage will always go up, just like processor speed and memory requirements and we as an industry need to be ready to deal with it. The telcos and the cable providers seem to be doing a better job of it right now mostly because the medium that they have supports better upload speeds that most WISP infrastructure can. We provide symmetrical service to our customers. 2Mb/s down and up... show me a typical Cable or DSL provider who can do that. In fact, most cable plants are severely limited in the upload direction just because of how the return path is configured (it all lives below channel 2). -forrest ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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 if you go over it says we can bill you. It also says that if we think you are going to go over, we can turn you off to prevent an overage bill. Generally we'll turn a P2P user off and when they call we'll say we saw you were transferring a *lot* of data, probably P2P, and this will result in a large bill at the end of the month. We've never had anyone take us up yet on this. Often it's the teenager in the house and the parent doesn't know about what is going on. Either way, the P2P user problem goes away. We've had a couple of leeches (for lack of a better word) who are always behind on their bills and can't seem to break their P2P habit. For those, we gladly turn them off and retrieve their equipment. -forrest ** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)
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... The limits I was talking about are in the tens of GByte/month range. 2Mb/s continous for days. I don't care whether it's P2P or a Web Server, or 100 Audio streams or Open Source .iso's being shared by Bittorrent. The Residential service we provide for $55/month is supposed to be intermittent, not 2Mb/s continuous. If someone wants 2Mb/s continous I'm more than happy to charge them $250/month for it. A typical customer on the $55/month service can download 2-3 full length, DVD quality, no additional compression movies without me even blinking an eye. Start sucking (or pushing) 2Mb/s continuous, then I get a little irritated. To me, the loss of a 2Mb/s continous customer is actually a good thing. 2Mb/s continuous is almost impossible to provide at $55/month in my neck of the woods. Any provider he goes to is going to cost them more money than they are charging them. How much are *you* paying for your upstream? -forrest ** 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] Merchant Services
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, no app fee, etc). -forrest ** 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] Feds OK fee for priority Web traffic
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 the fast lane? I expect that 99% of the web traffic will continue exactly as it is The whole point of this is that customers are more and more demanding QoS guarantees that are almost impossible to produce without being able to charge more for them, and for some applications are required. I'll give you an example VoIP. In order for it to work well, VoIP packets need to be given priority. Unfortunately if you don't charge extra for this priority traffic, then a certain segment of your customer base will figure out how to tag *all* of their packets for priority use. Gaming would be another example. During peak usage times, gamers suffer since latency goes up slightly just because links are in use. If the gamer (or a large gaming server) wants to pay extra for a latency guarantee (delivered by prioritizing packets ahead of others), then so be it. It is extremely costly to provide a network which will provide *at all times* extremely low latency and jitter for *all* traffic. What most providers want to be able to do is to say to customers, if a little added jitter and latency during peak times is unacceptable, then pay us extra for that traffic and we will guarantee that it will be put at the first of the line. If you don't pay us extra, your experience will continue to be about what it is today. -forrest ** 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] Feds OK fee for priority Web traffic
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 destination. Because I have negotiated QoS with my upstream, and they have negotiated it with their peers. Alternatively, If I'm a large enough ISP, someone like Vonage may purchase a line directly into my network and pay me to deliver 2 way traffic at a higher priority to their customers. -forrest ** 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] Leasing 2.3 or 2.5 GHz Licensed Spectrum
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 mind, but I will say that it is fairly common practice for unsolicited purchase/lease requests like this to be handled by outside council, simply to hide the identity of the person interested in the purchase or lease until at least interest is expressed by the existing owner. That said, in these cases I expect the background research was not done by the lawyer but instead by the $15/hour person, which then would provide details to the law firm as to who to potentially contact about the lease/purchase. -forrest ** 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 ** ** 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] PITA customers...
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 some reason (bad location, too far, fresnel issues, etc.), and sometimes the customer is expecting something that we can't realistically provide (2Mb/s up+down continuous for 24x7 (file sharers), or perfect latency, with no drops ever (gamers)). Whenever we reach the point where we realize that the customer expectation is not in line with what we can deliver is typically when we deliver the the service we are providing is the best that we can currently do at your location. If you are not happy, we are more than willing to let you out of your contract and refund your installation fees line. The customer can then choose to live with it, or not. Either way it doesn't matter to us, because we really don't want an unhappy customer. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] BLM fees
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 type of carrier they are. Adding a user adds a definate fee, which can be tied to the carrier. Dropping a carrier subtracts the same amount. The standard method in my neck of the woods is for the building owner to pass on 100% of the BLM fee tied to the operation of that carrier to the carrier. That is, if you are a TV station at a site, you get to pay what the BLM charges the owner for you to be at that site. 3) Most WISPS in rural areas are eligible for RUS loans (whether or not they elect to take them out). If you are RUS loan elegible, you are also exempt from BLM fees. Thus, adding you to a building should not change the rent the building owner pays for that building. There is some paperwork you will need to provide to the BLM for this purpose. 4) If you have a tower rent agreement which states that you have to pay BLM fees which are potentially not related to your operation, then you need to renegotiate, because you will end up paying for everyone else's use of the tower since your operation will generally not cause any fees to be incurred (or very low fees to be incurred), and it isn't fair for you to be subsidising everyone else's use of the tower. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] BLM fees
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 http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/2800-Final/2800f.html , especially those parts referring to RUS or REA. Some interesting quotes from this document... ``Rights-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed, without rental fees, for electric or telephone facilities eligible for financing pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, determined without regard to any application requirement under that Act or any extensions from such facilities.'' Congress made this change to exempt from rent those rights-of-way for electric or telephone facilities eligible for REA financing, but not financed through REA. Therefore, it is the eligibility of the facilities, rather than the eligibility of the owner or operator of the facilities, that is the focus of amended section 504(g). If electric or telephone facilities within a right-of-way are financed by REA, or are eligible for such financing, the right-of-way qualifies for a rent exemption. Thus, large utilities and rural cooperatives alike are eligible for rent exemptions if the facilities that they build are REA eligible. Previous regulations did not reflect the 1996 changes to the statute and final paragraph (d) of this section implements current statutory authority. -and- Under those provisions, telephone service ``shall be deemed to mean any communication service for the transmission or reception of voice, data, sounds, signals, pictures, writing, or signs of all kinds by wire, fiber, radio, light, or other visual or electromagnetic means, and shall include all telephone lines, facilities, or systems used in the rendition of such service; but shall not be deemed to mean message telegram service or community antenna television system services or facilities other than those intended exclusively for educational purposes, or radio broadcasting services or facilities within the meaning of section 3(o) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.'' Rural area ``shall be deemed to mean any area of the United States not included within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population in excess of 5000 inhabitants.'' WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] BLM fees
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 standardized form that eligible RUS borrowers would fill in to apply for the exemption to paying the rights-of-way rents. We are working with them on this form, but it hasn't been finalized yet. Until this form is finalized, RUS usually will provide a letter that certifies that a specific facility would qualify. Since your firm is an internet company, I assume your facility would qualify under the broadband program? (You will need to provide a facility description to the broadband division to confirm this). For your reference, I'll provide a short description of the exemption for RUS borrowers. The exemption for RUS borrowers is based on the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Here's the link to the document: http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf The relevant section is FLPMA Section 504 (g) [43 U.S.C. 1764 (g)], including subsequent amendments such as Public Law 104-333. I'll cite the relevant information from that section: Rights-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed, without rental fees, for electric or telephone facilities, eligible for financing pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended [7. U.S.C. 901 et seq.], determined without regard to any application requirement under that act, [P.L 104-333, 1996], or any extensions from such facilities: Provided, That nothing in this sentence shall be construed to affect the authority of the Secretary granting, issuing, or renewing the right-of-way to require reimbursement of reasonable administrative and other costs pursuant to the second sentence of this subsection. Eligibility for the rights-of-way exemption is based on the facility being eligible for RUS financing, not the whole company. For example, a company might have some facilities that are eligible for RUS financing, and others that are not. It is not a blanket exemption that applies to the whole company. Only those facilities that would be eligible for RUS financing are exempt from paying rights-of-way rents. If you provide facility specifics (equipment, location, etc) to the broadband division (or any other telecom program division you think the facility is eligible to receive financing from), they can provide you with a letter that certifies that those facilities would be eligible for RUS financing. I'm still in the process of getting the letter for two BLM sites I have. The link for the broadband loan program is http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/broadband.htm . Some of you may want to apply for the loan... after all it's 4% money. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] PITA customers...
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 receiving. We really don't want to have any unhappy customers, as a result, we will be more than happy to come out and get our equipment and refund your installation fee. This typically either shuts them up or gets rid of them. At the point we do this either one is ok. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] self inflicted interference
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 where your AP's are located in relation to each other on the site unless you are re-using frequencies at the site. Many of my sites have 2 omni's within a few feet of each other, and on the same horizontal plane. We have one site which actually has two 120* sectors within 18 inches or so of each other, pointed in the same direction - and on adjacent freqencies (I.E. the Canopy equivalent of Trango's 5v and 6v). Without sync you have to think about things like separation and polarities and antenna patterns and so on to ensure that you get enough separation (frequency, distance, and/or polarization) between the AP's. Yes, you can do it. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can make it work well, but it's not easy. Just to clarify, the above is talking about synchronizing all radios at a specific site, not across your network. That's a whole different discussion. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
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 on the net (30ish each on 3-4 Ap's) and they're slowly getting changed. Will canopy go 17+ miles? Yep... Trimmed to just show the relevant information: *LUID: 014* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-24-c0 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2324c0 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2258 (approximately 20.95 miles (110642 feet)) Session Count: 2, Reg Count 1, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 810/817 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 *LUID: 058* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-02-aa http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2302aa State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2532 (approximately 23.50 miles (124068 feet)) Session Count: 3, Reg Count 2, Re-Reg Count 2 RSSI (Avg/Last): 903/905 Jitter (Avg/Last): 3/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -69/-69 *LUID: 064* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-20-c4-07 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e20c407 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2552 (approximately 23.68 miles (125048 feet)) Session Count: 4, Reg Count 3, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 814/805 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/3 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 Uptime on this particular AP is 24 days... to interpret the Session counts accordingly. I suspect the session counts shown are customer power-related issues during that period (lightning season) and not necessarily RF related. (RF problems generally cause a lot of Re-Regs). Will canopy NOT interfere with all of the other systems in the area? No more than any other loaded system will interfere. We have had 802.11b and 2.4 Canopy AP's on the same tower for weeks at a time during swap periods with very few problems - no more than you'd expect from having two collocated AP's. Most of the complaints people have with the Canopy stuff interfering with them is more related to poor RF engineering on the interferred with system (links running right at the edge, and the added ambient noise of another operator knocks them off the air). Properly engineered systems will generally survive a canopy deployment in the area. That said, Canopy will generally be the last man standing as noise goes up, which makes them look bad since the assumption is that since the Canopy system isn't being interfered with that it must be the cause. I used to believe that canopy was bad and evil but then finally had enough of trying to make 802.11b (and trango) work and then switched to Canopy. I'm not looking back. What I need to find are wifi radios that have good rx and tx properties. I also need to find some better hpol sectors. I'm not sure if my previous email made it to the list which stated what you need is a radio with transmit synchronization - and then mentioning Canopy and WiMax. I also understand that Mikrotik and others are working on synchronizing 802.11bg in some way as well. A large problem with multiple-AP sites is that AP #1 transmitting kills the sensitivity of AP#2's receiver and so you spend a lot of time and effort trying to get enough separation (polarity and/or distance). TX synchronization fixes that particular issue. Cellular does it, Canopy does it, WiMax supports it, Trango claims they are going to support it, etc. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
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 Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- 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 VOIP
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 things: 1) The secret of making canopy work at extended ranges is buying cyclone AP's from last mile gear. http://www.lastmilegear.com. I regularly get 10+ miles LOS with a reflector at 5.7, and 20+ miles LOS with a reflector at 2.4. Without the cyclone APs you can get roughly half that. The one thing you may have missed is that canopy is multipath sensitive, so moving the SM even 6-8 inches could make the difference between a great link and no link - especially with a big RF mirror like the river you are talking about. 2) VoIP on canopy works really well when set correctly. Correctly means having the correct (not necessarily the latest) version in the AP and SM, and setting prioritization in both the AP and SM for voice traffic. In addition, you need to watch and make sure that you have bandwidth set correctly and are getting the speeds you expect. If you had a marginal link, there is every possibility that you simply did not have sufficient bandwidth available to you in the upstream -forrest -- 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 Babble
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 -- 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 Babble
Let me further clarify the statement below. Computer certifications permit each component to be certified separately and assembled as a system. As long as all of the components which go into the computer are certified individually, you can assemble them together into a computer which is also FCC legal, as far as the unintential radiation (FCC Class A and B computing device) certifications go. This is somewhat simplified, but you get the jist. The reason why this works is that each device is only adding a certain amount of noise, and as long as the total quantity of rf noise doesn't exceed a threshold, the computer is compliant. On the Part 15 intential radiator rules it is significantly different. This is because you are intending to transmit, and when this occurs you aren't just looking at random noise which happens because of the way the computer is put together... you are looking at a transmitter which must work correctly in order to meet the emission limits, both in and out of band. Because the limits are so tight, if you change an anteena you may affect the in-band or the out-of-band emissions or both. If either is out of spec, the equipment would not pass certification. Even changing the type of antenna may make a transmitter not work correctly, even if the gain is the same across the board. This is why the whole system needs to be certified together. The FCC has loosened this up a bit, so that the manufacturer can say that they tested it with antenna X which is similar to antennas Y and Z and as such X Y and Z are all certified. But this flexibility does not extend to the end user. They have to use only antenna X, Y, or Z and not antenna A. A certified radio card straddles both lines - as such it has been tested for emissions both under Part 15 intentional and also unintentional radiator rules. Both sets of permissions apply - it can be used, as certified, to operate as a Part 15 intentional radiator - and it can also be added to a certified computer system and comply with Class A and Class B computing 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 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 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC
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 missing a critical point: Show me a miniPCI wireless card which has a certification for an outdoor AP style antenna. *That* is the point of this thread. None of the miniPCI based systems are certified because noone has bothered to certify the miniPCI wireless card with a correct set of antennas. For instance, the Ubiquiti SR2 is only certified with a 3dbi omni from Hyperlink. Other cards are similar. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC
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 verify the routerboard (and probably the cases) emission limits as a computing device, and then certify the Ubiquiti card with antennas. You would also have to do the computing device test on the ubiquity card so that it can be integrated into a routerboard enclosure. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC
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. So Routerboards and similar SBCs may never make it as a personal computer. But VIA boards, and any NanoITX with video, keyboard, mouse DOES meet the definition of a personal computer. I don't think this is an insurmountable issue. As long as the tests are done like it was a Class B personal computer, you shouldn't have any problems at all. If you read the appropriate sections of Part 15, what they really mean by personal computer seems to be a computing device you use at your house (or can be used at the house) and has boards which can be added or removed. That is: Motherboard, case and power supply are tested (together or seperate, i'm not sure). This takes care of the certification for the Routerboard. This should be done my Mikrotik or the board manufacturer. Then the radio is tested and certified both as a Peripheral and as a Part 15 intentional radiator. This should be done by the radio manufacturer - and needs to include a reasonable range of antennas. That would solve the problem we are talking about. The problem is getting the vendors to actually go the additional mile to make this happen. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea
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 either adopt an existing CALEA standard or develop one for our industry. Anyone care to head up a committee on the topic??? Me heading up a committe right now isn't really in the cards, but I do want to add my $0.02 Technically this isn't really a problem. All that is needed is for you to be able to run a packet sniffer in the right spot on your network. On my core router (which happens to be Open Source based), I would just need to do something like : tcpdump -i vlan23 -C 100 -w caleaoutput host 1.2.3.4 This would produce a set of raw dump files containing the requested packets which could then be transfered to law enforcement. If you have a managed switch, having a linux box plugged into a mirrored switchport facing the client would permit you to do this. The hard part is how to provide this to law enforcement. I think perhaps just putting these files on a SFTP or password-protected https:// site might be sufficient. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DAWN ...and Ken....ARRL Requests changes to Part 15 rules for 2.4GHz Systems]
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 List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
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 kill other systems. We swapped a dying (due to interference) Trango system with a canopy system well over a year ago and haven't looked back. As customers on our existing 802.11b network have problems we just swap them to Canopy. Some here will probably mention canopy's abusive spectrum use. Yes, Motorola uses a very agressive modulation which both provides for incredible interference robustness, but unfortunately doesn't play very well with others. Systems with marginal link budget will fail when put in the presence of a motorola radio. I have heard this referred to as the 500 pound gorilla approach - I.E. where does a 500 pound gorilla set? Anywhere he wants to. I find it hard to see this as a disavantage to the Canopy operator. After all this is business, and you need to make decisions which improve your bottom line. One more thing... you need to be very careful about FCC certification of systems. Many of the systems which people put together themselves are not legal in the eyes of the FCC. In short, buying a radio from vendor A and pairing it with an antenna from vendor B may or may not be legal, even if the EIRP limit is not exceeded. Plus, you will have vendors (distributors mostly) which will lie to you about whether or not a given pair is legal. Currently many WISP's are doing things which are definitely not legal under the rules, and count on the FCC's continued non-enforcement of the part-15 bands as part of their business plan. As being an Amateur Radio operator and seeing what happens when the FCC decides to actually pursue enforcement in a band, I wouldn't want to tie my continued business survival to illegal equipment. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
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 actually ship. For example, they had a cert for the low power radio and the smallest panel, that they were trying to pass off on all of their gear, even their highest power radio combined with the biggest panel. It looks like they're getting better, but whether or not they are really 100% certified is hard to say. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
