Re: [WISPA] Motel setup

[John J. Thomas]

b tends to be more reliable than g, especially when penetrating walls.

JT


>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Hendry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 02:33 PM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Motel setup
>
>I notice this kit is 11b only. Is there a specific reason for using 11b for
>hotspots instead of 11g? I'm guessing it's because of the greater output
>power and receive sensitivity of 11b but isn't OFDM better for bouncing
>around the walls of a Hotel?
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
>Sent: 15 February 2006 06:36
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Motel setup
>
>Get about 3 of these things and you should be fine.
>http://tranzeo.com/uploaded_images/117_10_5_TR-600f%20Series.pdf
>
>Put ceiling omni's on them I would put one in the center of the
>building, and the remaining two towards the ends of the building.
>
>
>
>Kurt Fankhauser
>WAVELINC
>114 S. Walnut St.
>Bucyrus, OH 44820
>419-562-6405
>www.wavelinc.com
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Jason Hensley
>Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:59 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Motel setup
>
>What's the currently recommended gear / setup for a motel?  Total of 113
>rooms spread over 2 floors.  Going to be a 2-phrase project where the
>first
>group of rooms will have both Ethernet and Wi-Fi accessibility, with the
>remaining to have WiFi only.  No idea yet on the layout of which rooms
>will
>be Ethernet / WiFi, but that's not really important.  Owner is running
>the
>Ethernet cabling himself - just looking to contract out the Wireless end
>of
>it.
>
>I don't know much more than this at the moment.  Not sure on square
>footage
>or anything - that is to come soon, but thought I'd get some ideas on
>equipment to start and then go from there.
>
>Thanks a bunch!
>
>-- 
>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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date:
>2/13/2006
>
>
>-- 
>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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 14/02/2006
> 
>
>-- 
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 14/02/2006
> 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st

[John J. Thomas]

There has been so much talk about this, I might be inclined to help the FCC 
find those WISPs that are snubbing their noses at the law. This is a 
professional list and those here should be abiding by the law. I wonder if it 
would be a good thing to "kick out" those that promote illegal activities?

Whether you like it or not, WISPs will eventually be taxed- I guarantee the 
ILECs will see to that. If the FCC wants you, they will eventually find you.

John Thomas


>-Original Message-
>From: Frank Muto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 06:20 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
>
>http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/broadband_data_faq.pdf
>
>
>20. Are there penalties for not filing Form 477?
>
>Entities that are required to file Form 477 but fail to do so may be subject
>to the
>
>enforcement provisions of the Communications Act and any other applicable
>law. In
>
>particular, the Commission has authority pursuant to sections 502 and 503 of
>the
>
>Communications Act to enforce compliance by fine or forfeiture.
>
>
>
>
>
>Frank Muto
>Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
>Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
>http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Bob Moldashel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" ; "Marlon Schafer
>(509-982-2181)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st
>
>
>> OK...OK.
>>
>> I agree that all should probably file.  I have several partners so I am
>> not the only one to decide so I will leave it at that as it pertains to my
>> WISP entity.
>>
>> BUT...What is the penalty for not filing  Does anyone know???  Can
>> we get an official statement for this situation? Are there fines?
>> Penalty's?? Do you get a nasty gram??  Do they not send me a xmas card
>> next year??  What???
>>
>> It may help bring more compliance or it may result in less filings.
>> Either way I think the membership should know.
>>
>> Marlon...How about asking some of your contacts.
>>
>> -B-
>>
>> --
>> Bob Moldashel
>> Lakeland Communications, Inc.
>> Broadband Deployment Group
>> 1350 Lincoln Avenue
>> Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
>> 800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
>> 631-585-5558 Fax
>> 516-551-1131 Cell
>>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We 
will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. 
This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the 
whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh box 
but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for 
access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share numbers

John Thomas


>-Original Message-
>From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
>To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a small 
>town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking 
>of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. 
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be 
a much better choice

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>Tom,
>
>You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
>while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
>We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
>reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
>we really, really need it.
>jack
>
>Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>> Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
>> spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
>> PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
>> 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
>> dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
>> of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
>> 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
>> utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
>> destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
>> a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
>> within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
>> and relatively small panel antennas.
>> 
>> Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
>> spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
>> enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
>> reasons it was allocated for.
>> 
>> One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
>> spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
>> to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
>> 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
>> not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
>> high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
>> Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
>> corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
>> better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
>> wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
>> you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
>> RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
>> 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
>> additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
>> increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
>> is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
>> super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
>> 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
>> because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
>> give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
>> is using.  The mesh provider has options.
>> 
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>> 
>> - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>> 
>> 
>>> Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
>>> mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
>>> 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
>>> backhauling. In other words, separate the "access" traffic from the 
>>> "backhaul" traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
>>> times greater.
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> ISPlists wrote:
>>>
 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
 have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
 town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
 great.
  Thanks,
 Steve

>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>> Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
>>> Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>>> True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
>>> Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>Ser

Re: [WISPA] Switch recommendations

[John J. Thomas]

Where are these being used?  If it is at the customer edge, it will be 
different than if at your core. The Netgear FS726T runs between 100 and 200 
dollars and supports up to 8000 MAC adresses.

John


>-Original Message-


>From: Pete Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 07:05 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Switch recommendations
>
>I was wondering what switch has the largest mac address table. I don't 
>need more than 6 ports, but the $19.95 cheapy switches that my AP 
>Bridges all go into might be hurting my performance, I am thinking. If 
>shelling out $100 or so for a good switch makes sense, I am willing to 
>get one, but I don't want to spend money where its not needed.
>
>What does the "professional" ISP use?
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 
6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.

Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to 
post info shortly thereafter.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 04:14 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>>It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access.
>
>Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and
>5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls.  Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls,
>just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers.
>Sounds like an Interference battle to me.
>
>I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote "I took the road less
>travelled, and it made all the difference", Robert Frost.
>
>5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to
>blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in
>demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector 
>super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that
>wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to 
>Cisco's definition :-)
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>
>We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We
>will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks.
>This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the
>whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh
>box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4
>GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share
>numbers
>
>John Thomas
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
>>To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
>>Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>>
>>Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
>>small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm
>>thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Steve
>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Custom LMR-400 Cables?

[John J. Thomas]

Hyperlink Technologies

http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/cable_feed400.php

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Jason Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 05:13 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Custom LMR-400 Cables?
>
>Anyone know where I can get custom lmr-400 cables made that have right 
>angle n-type male connectors?
>
>Jason
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] VPN and Router Choices?

[John J. Thomas]

There are a couple of ways to do this.

1. You can use hardware firewalls for site-to-site VPN.

2. You can use hardware firewalls and terminate them to a Windows or Linux 
server for a site-to-ste VPN.

What performance level do you want?
How secure does it need to be?
How much bandwidth do they have?
How much traffic do they want going through the tunnel?

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Bo Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 07:52 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] VPN and Router Choices?
>
>Hello list,
>Im looking at setting up some VPN's and I have looked at many routers that
>claim ease of use.  Linksys, NetGear, D-Link and so on.  I was wondering if
>someone could tell me what is the easiest router for setup.
>
>Also, does one have to have a VPN server( i.e Windows or Linux) or does the
>router take place of this for remote connections.
>
>The senario I have is one central office with 2 satalite offices that
>connect to central.  The central office having the main VPN router.  I want
>to have the two seperate locations seen in the network neighborhood.
>
>Would this be a router to router VPN?  If so what are the easiest one's to
>configure.
>
>Im new to the VPN world so go easy on me.   :)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Bo Hamilton
>NCOWireless.com
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Muni wireless

[John J. Thomas]

You are absolutely right John. I can't list all the cities we are doing Public 
Safety projects for right now, but we are starting to light up the city of 
Gilroy CA. A lot of dollars are being spent on projects in the name of Public 
Safety, especially to allow Emergency Services to be able to remotely access 
network resources. The next thing on the radar is providing Internet access. If 
the WISP gets there early, he can be a part of the solution. If the WISP isn't 
there, the city will go ahead and do it anyway.

John Thomas


>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 08:16 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni wireless
>
>Munis are just your hometown wanting service just like residents,
>business and education. As soon as we learn this we will all benefit
>from it greatly. Public safety specifically is the killer application of
>muni broadband in my opinion. If we all learn how to sell this to our
>towns and service it correctly we will inevitably win in the end.
>Backhaul to munis who decide to go it alone is also an option. I would
>bet most if not all of them would pay for a service agreement on their
>networks also. Maybe they will pay you to build their network for them?
>Scriv
>
>
>Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> I personally don't much care for Muni wireless as I would rather the
>> government stay out of the ISP business. With that being said, Rome,
>> GA announced that GTS had won the the contract to install a wireless
>> system for the city. See http://muniwireless.com/municipal/bids/1102/ 
>> for details on the announcement.
>>
>> What I thought the list might find interesting is that we
>> (AirInfinite, now One Ring Networks) were included in GTS's bid and
>> will now be providing backhaul for the wireless network. I believe
>> this is an interesting approach for WISPs to take when dealing with
>> munis that have an interest in wireless.
>>
>> -Matt
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation

[John J. Thomas]

Look at Cisco Catalyst 500 series or HP Procurve series.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:50 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation 
>
>I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high amount 
>of packet per second and has qos for voip.
>Cost isn't an issue.
>
>Anyone have a suggestion?
>
>Thanks
>George
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform

[John J. Thomas]

In some rural areas, it can be tough to do it in 1 to 5 years. What if you need 
to provide service to the 2 houses that are 15 miles from your current tower 
and there is 0 potential for growth? This would allow you to charge enough for 
long enough that you don't have to lose money. How about 5-10 years for build 
out?  I can't think of too many scenarios where you couldn't do it in 10 years.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Jeromie Reeves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:30 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
>
>10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see 
>how a network can not be profitable
>in that time frame with "free" monies.
>
>Jeromie
>
>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee.
>> Thought you guys would like a peek at it first.
>>
>>
>>
>> WISPA USF Reform Position Paper
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and
>> operated trade association.  We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7
>> person, membership elected board.
>>
>>
>>
>>The goals for USF should be clarified.  Are laptops for
>> kids part of the program goals?  Was it the original intent that USF
>> exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to
>> the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal?  Is
>> this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program
>> otherwise leave it as is?  Or does Congress want to see substantial
>> changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle
>> innovation?
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to 
>> their own.  Without government tweaking.  USF should be canceled
>> completely.  If a real need for outside funding in regions or small
>> pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case
>> basis.  At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its
>> cost based fee structure encourages abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>>An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa,
>> Washington.  In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 
>> 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've
>> been told) of $600,000.  Even at the time, the cost of a microwave
>> replacement with more capacity would have been half or less.  This is 
>> for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere.  The telco is
>> now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to
>> other areas.  This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock
>> canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher.
>>
>>
>>
>>This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural 
>> areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut.
>> Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms.
>>
>>
>>
>>We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this
>> time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and
>> would not likely survive without them.  Leaving such business
>> practices in place permanently is not good public policy though.
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be
>> instituted.  Expand the program to include all communications
>> companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure.  Once that
>> system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though.  If it 
>> doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the
>> results of the network they built.  Somewhere between 10 and 20 years 
>> should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or
>> construction.  The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit 
>> line item for companies but rather be a short term
>> capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company
>> standing (or not) on its own  two feet at a set specific date.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause
>> multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient 
>> ones would survive.  If, after USF was discontinued some areas were
>> left with no viable options for service those specific cases could be 
>> addressed under some more targeted program.  Funds should be collected
>> and distributed based on customers serviced.  This would help prevent 
>> speculation with the funds, rather the funds would reward those that
>> have already stepped up to the plate.  Tying fund distribution with
>> the FCC form 477 would also likely help lead to more accurate market
>> data availability.
>>
>>
>>
>> WISPA also believes that USF's goals should be readdressed.  We don't 
>> believe that using USF funds to provide laptop computers to 68,000 7th
>> and 8th graders in Massachusetts is a proper use of the program.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would also like to see some changes in the way that USF is
>> distributed. The E-Rate program excludes a

Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform

[John J. Thomas]

Are you willing to put up a tower to serve 2 customers? Only if you think you 
can get your money back.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: KyWiFi LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 01:11 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
>
>I agree, I would think that 12 months is plenty long enough,
>definitely not more than 36 months. Take our company for
>example, we deployed 7 broadcast sites in our first 12 months
>of operation and we were profitable by month number 8 or 9
>and this was WITHOUT any "free" money. If a company in
>this line of work cannot achieve a profit in their first year or
>two of operation, I don't see them being around long term.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
>KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
>http://www.KyWiFi.com
>http://www.KyWiFiVoice.com
>Phone: 859.274.4033
>A Broadband Phone & Internet Provider
>
>==
>Wireless Broadband, Local Calling and
>UNLIMITED Long Distance only $69!
>
>No Taxes, No Regulatory Fees, No Hassles
>
>FREE Site Survey: http://www.KyWiFi.com
>==
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF fund reform
>
>
>10 to 20 year time line? I would like to see 1 to 5 years. I do not see 
>how a network can not be profitable
>in that time frame with "free" monies.
>
>Jeromie
>
>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here's what WISPA is prepared to submit to the commerce committee.  
>> Thought you guys would like a peek at it first.
>>
>>
>>
>> WISPA USF Reform Position Paper
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA is a the WISP industry's only industry owned and 
>> operated trade association.  We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 
>> person, membership elected board.
>>
>>
>>
>>The goals for USF should be clarified.  Are laptops for 
>> kids part of the program goals?  Was it the original intent that USF 
>> exclude small local entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to 
>> the incumbent? As USF changes, do the changes have a clear goal?  Is 
>> this just a mechanism to try to put more funds into the program 
>> otherwise leave it as is?  Or does Congress want to see substantial 
>> changes in the program that do more to foster rather than stifle 
>> innovation?
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left to 
>> their own.  Without government tweaking.  USF should be canceled 
>> completely.  If a real need for outside funding in regions or small 
>> pockets turns out to be needed, address those issues on a case by case 
>> basis.  At the very least the USF program needs major reform as its 
>> cost based fee structure encourages abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>>An example of artificially high costs would be in Odessa, 
>> Washington.  In the early 2000 time frame the local telco replaced an 
>> 8 T-1 microwave link with a fiber optic line at a cost (or so we've 
>> been told) of $600,000.  Even at the time, the cost of a microwave 
>> replacement with more capacity would have been half or less.  This is 
>> for a town of 1000 that's not on the way to anywhere.  The telco is 
>> now in the process of adding more fiber to complete a fiber loop to 
>> other areas.  This next 30 mile stretch is through many solid rock 
>> canyons and the costs are expected to be even higher.
>>
>>
>>
>>This same telco has installed $60,000 DSL systems in rural 
>> areas that have fewer than 15 houses within 18,000 feet of the hut.  
>> Clearly these are cost raising mechanisms.
>>
>>
>>
>>We understand that USF is not likely to go away at this 
>> time. The above telco gets 2/3rds of its income via subsidies and 
>> would not likely survive without them.  Leaving such business 
>> practices in place permanently is not good public policy though.
>>
>>
>>
>>WISPA proposes that a time limit on the USF program be 
>> instituted.  Expand the program to include all communications 
>> companies and use USF to help them build an infrastructure.  Once that 
>> system is built, it needs to stand on its own two legs though.  If it 
>> doesn't, then that's the company's fault and they can live with the 
>> results of the network they built.  Somewhere between 10 and 20 years 
>> should allow plenty of time for efficient network upgrades or 
>> construction.  The program should not be viewed as a permanent profit 
>> line item for companies but rather be a short term 
>> capitalization/construction fund that will end and leave the company 
>> standing (or not) on its own  two feet at a set specific date.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that opening up USF to all operators would likely cause 
>> multiple networks to be built at the same time and the most efficient 
>> ones would survive.  If, after USF was discontinued some areas were 
>> left with no viable o

Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation

[John J. Thomas]

Generally, you want QOS classifying as close the edges as you can get it. Then 
you want your switches to honor the TOS/COS tags, then you want your edge 
router to police/queue/fragment to your upstream.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Rick Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 04:09 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
>
>I can't see how having a QOS switch could hurt...with VOIP, QOS in as
>many places
>as possible can only help...
>
>Paul Hendry wrote:
>
>>Is the switch likely to be the bottle neck in your network? Surely you want
>>QoS enabled routers where bandwidth isn't plentiful.
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>Behalf Of George
>>Sent: 29 March 2006 03:50
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Switch Recomendation
>>
>>Thanks matt and larry.
>>I have a 2512 procurve that we like and a Dell switch as well.
>>
>>Who makes the Dell switches for Dell?
>>
>>Guess what I really want is to make sure that those little voice packets
>>get the priority :)
>>
>>George
>>
>>Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We've found that you don't really need a QoS capable switch. What is
>>>more important is for the appropriate COS and TOS bits to be set by the
>>>VoIP device(s) in question and have a switch capable of "doing the right
>>>thing" with those packets. Every enterprise grade switch we have looked
>>>at seems to do the right thing when the bits are set. We've been happy
>>>with Dell switchs for example.
>>>
>>>-Matt
>>>
>>>George Rogato wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I need a recommendation for a 12 port switch that handles a high
amount of packet per second and has qos for voip.
Cost isn't an issue.

Anyone have a suggestion?

Thanks
George


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Wireless map

[John J. Thomas]

Anybody want some free advertising?

Broadbandreports.com has a map that lists ISPs.

http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/localisp




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

If it would stop raining..


We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know.

They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes.

The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they only 
put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on this, and 
they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. We are going 
to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what the REAL output 
power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good.

The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface is 
only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS that 
can be changed.


We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end and 
no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and got 
between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a firehouse at 
about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or so.

The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to 
monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good.

We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between the 
stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge.

They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available later 
this year.



John






>-Original Message-
>From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>John,
>
>It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?
>
>On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
>> available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 
>> 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.
>>
>> Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to 
>> post info shortly thereafter.
>
>Best,
>--
>Dylan Oliver
>Primaverity, LLC
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

All of the above

The controller has RSSI, several graphs, both current and historical, other APs 
seen, and a few other things we haven't completely dug into.

When we get back down there, I will get a list of all the monitoring it 
supports and give a better review.

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 05:56 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
>
>Define monitoring?
>
>Up down status, or real time and historical data of link characteristics and 
>health?
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
>
>
>
>If it would stop raining..
>
>
>We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know.
>
>They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes.
>
>The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they 
>only put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on 
>this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. 
>We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what 
>the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good.
>
>The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface 
>is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS 
>that can be changed.
>
>
>We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end 
>and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and 
>got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a 
>firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or 
>so.
>
>The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to 
>monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good.
>
>We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between 
>the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge.
>
>They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available 
>later this year.
>
>
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-----
>>From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>>
>>John,
>>
>>It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?
>>
>>On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
>>> available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only 
>>> has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.
>>>
>>> Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able 
>>> to post info shortly thereafter.
>>
>>Best,
>>--
>>Dylan Oliver
>>Primaverity, LLC
>>-- 
>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion

[John J. Thomas]

PBX>FXOmodule>Ethernet>WirelessBridge>WirelessBridge>Ethernet>FXS module

Here is one example, Google will probably get you cheaper ones


John


>-Original Message-
>From: Mario Pommier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:57 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion
>
>I have an interesting application, that maybe someone has tried:
>
>Customer is expanding to a remote office, across the street from the 
>main office.
>They need to connect voice and data between the two.
>There's clear LOS, so a wireless link will work.
>The telephone PBX is at the main office, of course.
>I need to send avoice line across the wireless link from the main office 
>to the remote one.
>How do I add the voice?  Couldn't I simply do this?
>
>PBX [telephone cord]>[Linksys VoIP phone]->[switch (which 
>also has an uplink to the wired network)]>[wireless radio]
>
>On the other side of the link, the telephone cord would go into a 
>desktop phone terminal.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Mario
>---
>[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

[John J. Thomas]

It is a little strange to have a few MHz be left out, but with that range, who 
cares? This will make for some very cool possibilities...


John


>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, April 7, 2006 09:24 PM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
>
>We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was 
>wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL 
>tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with 
>that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for 
>the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. 
>Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, 
>can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent 
>out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If 
>you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much 
>help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a 
>valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to 
>all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what 
>he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. 
>Please forgive me.
>Scriv
>
>
>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced
>
>the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
>
>*
>
>A BILL
>
>*
>
>To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and
>
>expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and
>
>other areas, and for other purposes.
>
>//
>
>/Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- /
>
>//
>
>/tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/,
>
>**
>
>*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. *
>
>This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband
>
>for Communities Act’’.
>
>2
>
>**
>
>*SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE *
>
>**
>
>*FOR WIRELESS USE. *
>
>Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934
>
>(47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
>
>the following:
>
>**
>
>*‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM *
>
>**
>
>*MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. *
>
>‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the
>
>band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other
>
>than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega-
>
>Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in-
>
>cluding wireless broadband devices.’’.
>
>**
>
>*SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. *
>
>Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
>
>Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall—
>
>(1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in
>
>ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate
>
>the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made
>
>available under section 342 of the Communications
>
>Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices,
>
>including wireless broadband devices; and
>
>(2) establish rules and procedures to—
>
>(A) protect incumbent licensed services, in-
>
>cluding broadcast television and public safety
>
>equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses
>
>3
>
>from harmful interference from such unlicensed
>
>devices;
>
>(B) address complaints from licensed
>
>broadcast stations that an unlicensed device
>
>using such spectrum causes harmful inter-
>
>ference that include verification, in the field, of
>
>actual harmful interference;
>
>(C) require manufacturers of unlicensed
>
>devices designed to be operated in this spectrum
>
>to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy
>
>actual harmful interference to the extent that
>
>harmful interference is found by the Commis-
>
>sion which may include disabling or modifying
>
>the unlicensed device remotely; and
>
>(D) require certification of unlicensed de-
>
>vices designed to be operated in that spectrum
>
>to ensure that they meet the technical criteria
>
>established under paragraph (1) and can per-
>
>form the functions described in subparagraph
>
>(C).
>
>March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM)
>
>
>
>*From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>*Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07
>*To:* Frannie Wellings
>*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
>
>I need a copy of this bill right away.
>Scriv
>
>
>Frannie Wellings wrote:
>
> > Hey John,
> >
> > The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying
> > here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between
> > 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the
> > Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only
> > difference is a bit of additional language about protection from
> > interference.
> >
> > This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and
> > get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out
> > of town, but could get a copy to send to you.
> >
> > Best, Frannie
> >
> >
> >
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless L

Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

[John J. Thomas]

Thanks for the link, it seemed kind of strange why that little slice of 6 MHz 
was left out.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:43 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
>
>All,
>
>I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press 
>release with contact info was posted in my first email.
>Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press 
>release? What should be done in the future
>to avoid a situation like this?
>
>I was under the impression there were people on this list to make 
>corrections when the media passes on misinformation.
>We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up.
>
>Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for 
>wireless broadband.
>http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html
>
>   "Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz)
>Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 
>608-614 MHz)
>Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in 
>thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have 
>proven both
>durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded 
>transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring
>on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide 
>audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our 
>cellular
>telemetry system."
>
>Apologies to all,
>Dawn DiPietro
>
>John Scrivner wrote:
>
>> We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was 
>> wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for 
>> ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong 
>> with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am 
>> sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose 
>> of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. 
>> Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press 
>> outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to 
>> SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but 
>> apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on 
>> this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again 
>> send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the 
>> ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very 
>> sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me.
>> Scriv
>>
>>
>> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>>
>> Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced
>>
>> the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
>>
>> *
>>
>> A BILL
>>
>> *
>>
>> To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and
>>
>> expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and
>>
>> other areas, and for other purposes.
>>
>> //
>>
>> /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- /
>>
>> //
>>
>> /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/,
>>
>> **
>>
>> *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. *
>>
>> This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband
>>
>> for Communities Act’’.
>>
>> 2
>>
>> **
>>
>> *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE *
>>
>> **
>>
>> *FOR WIRELESS USE. *
>>
>> Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934
>>
>> (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
>>
>> the following:
>>
>> **
>>
>> *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM *
>>
>> **
>>
>> *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. *
>>
>> ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the
>>
>> band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other
>>
>> than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega-
>>
>> Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in-
>>
>> cluding wireless broadband devices.’’.
>>
>> **
>>
>> *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. *
>>
>> Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
>>
>> Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall—
>>
>> (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in
>>
>> ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate
>>
>> the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made
>>
>> available under section 342 of the Communications
>>
>> Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices,
>>
>> including wireless broadband devices; and
>>
>> (2) establish rules and procedures to—
>>
>> (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in-
>>
>> cluding broadcast television and public safety
>>
>> equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses
>>
>> 3
>>
>> from harmful interference from such unlicensed
>>
>> devices;
>>
>> (B) address complaints from licensed
>>
>> broadcast stations that an unlicensed device
>>
>> using such spectrum causes harmful inter-
>>
>> ference that include verification, in the field, of
>>
>> actual harmful interference;
>>
>> (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed
>>
>

Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?

[John J. Thomas]

This sounds like it could have potential. I'm sure that most WISPs would like 
to take a vacation sometime  :-)  

The main problem I see is how does an ISP give them enough info to be useful, 
while not letting people deep into his network?

If this is just level 1 stuff, then network maps, ip addresses, routes and 
types of equipment would probably do.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Rick Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 10:13 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
>
>tanks for the input...granted, diversity makes it tough.
>
>But, there's something common to them all, on a level 1 basis...
>
>when in doubt, reboot...check cables...check power...etc...
>
>I wouldn't do this blind, I'd ask for customer names, IP's, first ping, 
>second ping test, etc..
>
>It would have to be a "generic" test at least on the first level.  2nd 
>level tech could
>get a little more detailed, but you're right - 3 to 5 minutes and you 
>determine a
>truck roll or not.
>
>I'm thinking of doing this to relieve the WISP from the B.S. daily grind 
>stuff - idiot users
>and common troubleshooting - giving them something on a 2nd or 3rd level 
>reference
>to work with instead of wasting their precious time.
>
>Something to contemplate I'm sure.
>
>Thanks
>
>R
>
>
>David E. Smith wrote:
>
>>Rick Smith wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support
>>>department
>>>creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a
>>>couple of
>>>technical people down and start up a technical support call center and
>>>answering service, with WISPs and ISPs in mind...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'd feel sorry for the folks answering the phones, because they'd have to
>>know about a squillion different wireless systems.
>>
>>"Hm. Okay, Mr. Sixpack. Before I can help you, just a few quick questions.
>>First, is your ISP using Alvarion, Karlnet, Trango, Mikrotik, StarOS, or
>>Waverider towers?"
>>
>>(And that's just the stuff in MY network. Now take that kind of diversity
>>and multiply it by a couple hundred WISPs and your phone guys are gonna
>>have headaches and a ten-foot stack of manuals on their desks.)
>>
>>Not to mention the fact that every WISP I've seen has different, and
>>mostly-incompatible ways of doing things. I've seen networks that use DHCP
>>for everything, RFC1918 overlay networks, static IPs, static IPs assigned
>>through DHCP, places where the whole network is NATted behind someone's
>>DSL line, and so on and so on.
>>
>>For some of those network setups, it would be darn near impossible to give
>>someone not in the office/NOC the necessary access to even try to
>>troubleshoot a problem.
>>
>>And honestly, at least in my office, most wireless issues are either
>>solved in five minutes, or they require a service call.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for this, and I wish you all
>>the best. I just suspect, in my usual pessimistic way, that it'd be a lot
>>harder to do than you might think.
>>
>>David Smith
>>MVN.net
>>  
>>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

[John J. Thomas]

Yes, when you start working with Cities and giving them good service, they 
remember  It is nice to have someone call you asking for service because 
Mr. x from another city liked your work.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2006 08:33 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
>
>I do not have the  link to the proceeding but t is known as 04-186 and a 
>quick Google should get you to it. It is on the FCC.gov website 
>someplace. Anyone have a link to it? The power limits are spelled out 
>there I believe. The public process on 04-186 is complete now. We will 
>have what we have according to that proceeding. It is a good rulemaking 
>for us. I think we should be able to ask for some adaptations in the 
>future which could allow for some protections if we show substantial use 
>of the band for public safety, government, economic development and 
>general good of the public. Most of you guys already do this so it 
>should be easy. For those of you who have not tapped into the killer 
>application of public safety (police cars, firetrucks, civil defense, 
>disaster preparedness, etc.) you need to get with the program. If you 
>become the best friend of the head of your (EOC) Emergency Operations 
>Center for your county then you will have a ticket to do most anything 
>you need to "protect and serve" using good spectrum in your community. I 
>whole heartedly believe this is the path to entrenching us into the 
>fabric of communications from now on in our service areas.
>Cheers,
>Scriv
>
>
>Dylan Oliver wrote:
>
>>Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the
>>whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass?
>>I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things
>>proper.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>--
>>Dylan Oliver
>>Primaverity, LLC
>>  
>>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh) are 
abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats $74,000 for 
the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
>
>c
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of George
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
>
>I am not a fan of muni wireless.
>
>George
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>--
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

You mean it's not already :-)

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:36 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>I'll go ahead and predict that San Francisco will be a disaster.
>
>-Matt
>
>Jack Unger wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
>> that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done 
>> correctly and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a 
>> positive role in proper network design and operation however most muni 
>> networks are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless 
>> experience (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which 
>> will lead to network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible 
>> loss of jobs on the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the 
>> elected officials) who backed the networks without first learning 
>> about how wireless technology really works.
>>   jack
>>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of muni wireless.
>>>
>>> George
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

inline...
>-Original Message-
>From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:40 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>I am doubting that wisps can actually accomadate the muni in most 
>situations, unless they are closely involved with the design of the 
>network, Talking spectrum use here.

First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down their 
throats.

Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 GHz 
for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.


>
>As for going along with free muni wifi, How is a wisp going to operate 
>if a muni is offering for free or at cut rate pricing?

In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
firewalls, etc.



>And how are they going to expand if the spectrum is used up all over the 
>place with unlicensed omni's on every corner.
>
>George
>
>Jack Unger wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems 
>> that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly 
>> and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive 
>> role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks 
>> are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience 
>> (yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to 
>> network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on 
>> the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who 
>> backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology 
>> really works.
>>   jack
>> 
>> George wrote:
>> 
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of muni wireless.
>>>
>>> George
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

>-Original Message-
>From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>> inline...
>
>>
>> First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many simply 
>> refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved down 
>> their throats.
>>
>
>I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some facts;
1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified 
network Integrator.
2. Cities have approached US to install their networks
3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations 
100,000 and smaller.
4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers, 
first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second.


>
>But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
>I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
>Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.
>
>> Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8 
>> GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.
>>
>
>Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for
>infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to
>move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?

I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if WISPs 
want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of 2.4 as 
it is getting crowded in lots of areas.
>
>>
>> In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period. They 
>> won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii, doing 
>> firewalls, etc.
>>
>
>Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while
>deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system
>is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which
>choice is the average consumer going to make?

Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and will 
look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my house 
and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I dropped the 
SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg down and about 
384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by DSLreports. Even my wife 
thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford it anymore. If someone in 
Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at $42 per month, I would be 
there. There is a subset of people that want quality, and are willing to pay 
for it. Two questions come up-can you deliver and are there enough to keep you 
from starving?



>
>The support scenario happens long after the fact.
>
>George
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

Cities don't want home brew, they generally want something that says Cisco on 
the side. Every city that we ahve recently talked to either has a Cisco 
Catalyst 6500 at teh core or has written a RFP to buy a switch that directly 
indicates a Catalyst 6500. Note, I am talking about cities with populationd of  
25,000 and larger, I can't speak for the smaller towns.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?
>
>c
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
>node.
>The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
>Underbuild their networks.
>
>-
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)
>are
>> abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats
>$74,000
>> for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
>>> To: ''WISPA General List''
>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>>>
>>> $173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..
>>>
>>> c
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On
>>> Behalf Of George
>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of muni wireless.
>>>
>>> George
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
>4/14/2006
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>--
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

Absolutely, and when we approach a city about doing a network, we are QUICK to 
point out that Tropos only has one radio. 

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:45 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>Matt,
>
>A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
>than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
>the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.
>
>The reason the big muni projects often select Tropos is that Tropos has 
>the best marketing effort out there and has been "in the game" longer 
>than most other mesh equipment vendors.
>
>I predict it won't take too may big Tropos-based muni networks to fail 
>before future big-city muni administrators will "see the light" and 
>chose other, more throughput-capable mesh vendors.
>
>jack
>
>
>Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> In recent post I explained that here in Atlanta you can only use a 
>> single 2.4 channel because of the noise floor. How is a multi-band mesh 
>> node going to work?
>> 
>> Maybe there is a reason the big muni projects keep selecting Tropos.
>> 
>> -Matt
>> 
>> Jack Unger wrote:
>> 
>>> Dawn,
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting the St. Cloud PepLink and HP info.
>>>
>>> Using standard CPE (PePLink)is very good but using Tropos nodes is 
>>> very, very bad. Very bad because they only have one single 2.4 GHz 
>>> radio so after 2 or 3 hops, all the throughput capability is gone not 
>>> to mention that the interference level from having all the access and 
>>> backhaul packets colliding on 2.4 GHz (along with any WISP and other 
>>> 2.4 GHz network packets) will slow all the networks (muni and WISP) 
>>> down further. I hate to "finger" anyone but Tropos' stubborn refusal 
>>> or inability (anyone at Tropos listening???) to produce a 2-band mesh 
>>> node is going to doom them to failure along with any big city that 
>>> deploys their nodes without an extremely efficient point-to-multipoint 
>>> backbone design on 5 GHz.
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> Dawn DiPietro wrote:
>>>
 http://www.peplink.com/060306.php

 Date: March 7, 2006*
 PePLink announces as the official Citywide Wireless CPE provider for 
 City of St. Cloud in Florida  *

 *Hong Kong, Mar 7, 2006 - *PePLink, a leader in citywide WiFi 
 wireless broadband devices today announced the City of St. Cloud, FL, 
 a suburb of Orlando, has chosen PePLink to be the official wireless 
 CPE provider for the Cyber Spot, the City's 100% free citywide 
 high-speed wireless Internet service.

 With a reliable, secure, ease of use wireless CPE - PePLink Surf, 
 every citizen or business in the city of St. Cloud can connect to the 
 citywide wireless network at a high speed. The CPE greatly enhances 
 the throughput and reliability of both up and down link compared with 
 a wireless-enabled computer desktop or notebook computer.

 The simple true plug and play nature of the PePLink Surf helps the 
 citizens in St. Cloud to bring the wireless signal indoors with ease. 
 At the same time, the PePLink Surf units can be remotely managed, 
 monitored and provisioned by PePLink's carrier-grade management and 
 reporting solution, PCMS (or PePLink Centralized Management System). 
 This can ensure a scalable and rapid rollout of the wireless systems 
 within a short period of time. This eliminates an onsite installation 
 charge.

 "Being chosen by City of St. Cloud has further endorsed our 
 capability to offer reliable wireless solutions to municipal wireless 
 networks built with mesh network technology," said Alex Chan, 
 Managing Director of PePLink. "PePLink Surf together with PCMS is the 
 complete solution specifically designed for today's citywide wireless 
 networks."

 PePLink Surf series consists of Surf 200BG and Surf 400BG. For more 
 information on PePLink Surf series, please visit 
 http://www.peplink.com .




 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

> roflol
>
> The city is selling "signal boosters" (I read that as amps) to 
> anyone that wants them for $170?
>
> Oh man, this deployment is gonna come CRASHING down.  Hard.
>
> It's really too bad these people are too ignorant, stubborn or just 
> plain stupid to call any of us in to help.
>
> sigh
>
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
> wisp!
> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "George" <[EMAIL P

Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

[John J. Thomas]

So, in Atlanta, the trees are so dense that a 5 GHz radio putting out 26 dBm 
into a 7.5 dB omni can't go 2500 feet?

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:53 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes
>
>Jack Unger wrote:
>
>> A multi-band mesh node does the backhaul on 5 GHz (sometimes with more 
>> than one 5 GHz radio). This reduces (but certainly doesn't eliminate) 
>> the 2.4 GHz self-interference and other-network-interference level.
>>
>You can't use 5 Ghz to go through trees here in Atlanta, so that won't 
>help you. Multi-band mesh nodes simple don't work here.
>
>-Matt
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? 2 diferent issues at hand

[John J. Thomas]

I think the general thinking is that WISP's shouldn't have to pay to make the 
Governments' job easier...

John 


>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 5, 2006 11:29 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? 2 diferent issues at hand
>
>I want to preface this email with the statement that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT 
>support this law, it is an invasion of privacy and places an undue 
>burden of responsibility on an ISP.
>
>Now that being said, as I read the article, and as some have pointed out 
>the information being requested for archive is merely websites visited 
>and email address sent to. This information is trivial to gather and 
>really not that burdensome to archive. I currently run about 4Mbps-5Mbps 
>of traffic from 8am to midnight and a months worth of these logs 
>uncompressed only takes up about 7G of space. Compression will save me 
>60% of that so it is more like 3G for a month of 4-5Mbps. This fits 
>nicely on a single DVD-R for achiving once a month. Even scaling this up 
>to 30X the traffic for a DVD/day gets you 120-150Mbps daily average traffic.
>
>Your total cost on something like this would be
>1. a Mikrotik box (or any router that supports the netflow protocol) to 
>sit right before your edge router (or as your edge router).
>2. A PC to capture the data with a DVD+-R drive total cost < $500.
>3. And then a spindle of DVD media at ~ $15/100 DVDs.
>
>This puts the grand total in at well under $2000 one time cost and then 
>whatever personnel cost you want to assign to burning a DVD once a 
>month, or if you are lucky enough to have enough customers to require 
>120Mbps, once a day.
>
>I think it is important if we are going to draft something up to address 
>this issue that we address it with facts. For most ISPs coming up with 
>the money to achieve this while a PITA is not going to cause the 
>business to go bankrupt. I achieved this using equipment I already have 
>in place. My DS3 MT router sends the netflow data to the box I use for 
>system/network monitoring. I currently do not archive this data to DVD 
>because I have only been collecting it for a month, but I highly doubt I 
>will unless required to by law. The only reason I collect this data is 
>for IP accounting and troubleshooting and will probably keep no more 
>than a month or two of the full data. But it sure comes in handy when a 
>customer calls up and says that they haven't had internet for the past 2 
>weeks and I can pull up the charts that show they have. Or they say that 
>things have been running real slow lately and I can look at the flow 
>data and see that their kids have been using P2P applications or doing 
>large FTP downloads.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>Butch Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, George Rogato wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Does the government have a right to know the actions of Americans 
>>> on the internet?
>>
>> This is not really at issue. At least it is not really of any concern 
>> for us here.
>>
>>> 2) Is this a responsibility of the ISP to bear the burden of 
>>> gathering this information or should the burden be carried by the 
>>> feds themselves with little or no cost to the ISP?
>>
>> THIS is the real issue that ISPs face. The problem that we all have 
>> with this is multifaceted. First, (and perhaps most importantly) is 
>> the cost that many ISPs will face to comply with the requirements. In 
>> many cases, this cost will be both direct (for hardware) and indirect 
>> (network reconfiguration). Also, many ISPs are set up in such a way 
>> that compliance will be nearly impossible. Let me provide just a 
>> couple examples.
>>
>> First, many ISPs use private IP space internally for their customers. 
>> For these ISPs, any monitoring done by an outside entity (i.e. AT&T) 
>> will be completely useless.
>>
>> Another example, would be the many ISPs that have several diverse 
>> networks. I have several customers that have 3 or 4 distinct networks 
>> (one has 8). These ISPs would be required to store this data in either 
>> one location, or purchase the equipment for each network.
>>
>> It is my belief that WISPA should create a stance against any 
>> requirement for WISPs to store customer traffic patterns for any 
>> period. The very idea is hideously un-American in the first place. Be 
>> that as it may, it is technically difficult, and financially unfair 
>> for many smaller ISPs to have to store this information at all.
>>
>>> This thread started out as we should not be allowing the government 
>>> to know our every move. This is a political discussion that can not 
>>> and should not be decided by an ISP, but rather the entire country. 
>>> We don't have any jurisdiction on issues such as this.
>>
>> George, this is one area where we disagree. This is NOT a "political 
>> discussion". This is an issue that directly impacts every ISP 
>> (wireless or wired). It is, perhaps, true that 

Re: [WISPA] Fw: Wireless In Washington

[John J. Thomas]

This should be reason enough for a close look at TOS and pricing mechanisms. If 
your clients have to pay more for usage, then they will think twice before 
buying into this.

Fry's Electronics usually has a $20 wireless router on sale so this is not the 
only possible threat. The $20 wireless router they sell usually freezes after a 
couple of hours of heavy usage though...

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 08:08 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [WISPA] Fw: Wireless In Washington
>
>For those that still think the all you can eat option is a good one :-)
>
>Marlon
>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>
>This guy needs to get a job from FON. 
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200989,00.html
>
>
>
>  Wi-Fi Company to Sell Routers for Five Dollars
>
>  Monday, June 26, 2006
>
>
>
>
>   STORIES
>
>.
>
>Reports of Death of Dial-Up Internet Greatly Exaggerated
>
>
>
>  LONDON  - FON, a Spanish start-up on an ambitious crusade to turn home 
> Wi-Fi connections into wireless "hotspots" for nearby users, is set to unveil 
> on Monday a plan to hand out 1 million wireless routers for just $5 apiece.
>
>  FON, which aims to create a network of home users and small businesses 
> to resell wireless access to passersby, said on Sunday it will subsidize $60 
> Cisco (CSCO) Linksys or Buffalo routers for $5 in the United States or 5 
> euros in Europe.
>
>  Routers are small boxes users connect to cable or telephone Internet 
> connections to broadcast wireless signals to nearby devices, inside a home, 
> business or surrounding neighborhood.
>
>  Juergen Urbanski, North American general manager, said FON, which in 
> February raised $21.7 million from backers, including the founders of Google 
> (GOOG) and Skype, is looking to turn the brand-name equipment into what it 
> calls "social routers."
>
>  The goal of the Madrid-based company is to build block-by-block networks 
> of shared wireless connections around the globe, turning local Wi-Fi users 
> into an army of "foneros" - its term for people who share wireless access.
>
>  As the company's name implies, FON aims to provide wireless Internet 
> access not just to computer users but also for mobile phones and the latest 
> portable gaming devices as they roam.
>
>  (Story continues below)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Kevin Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:05 AM
>To: 'Mike Hall'
>Subject: FW: Wireless In Washington
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:53 AM
>To: webmaster; omimo
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Wireless In Washington
>
>
>
>Hiya,
>
>Comments below.
>
>Marlon
>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: webmaster
>To: omimo
>Cc: Marlon Schafer
>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Wireless In Washington
>
>
>I have forwarded your inquiry for reply.
>
>Mary
>- Original Message -
>From: omimo
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:49 PM
>Subject: Wireless In Washington
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I was really encouraged by your experiences starting up a wireless network 
>service.
>
>
>
>mks:  Thanks!
>
>
>
>I'm about to move to a house near Uniontown WA.
>
>
>
>mks:  Cool.  You'll like it there.
>
>I am sad because I have to give up my connection that I 'borrow' from my 
>landlord thanks to a small repeater sitting on his kitchen windowsill and a 
>converted steel salad bowl with my D-Link USB unit attached. Range: 150 yards 
>with 56Mbps to his home network.
>
>
>
>mks:  Grin
>
>I was so proud of that hack.
>
>
>
>mks:  Big grin!
>
>My new place is about 8km from one of the local providers antenna's and 13km 
>from anther one. The provider is First Step Internet out of Moscow, ID.
>
>
>
>mks:  Coolness.  I know those guys.  Good people.  Great network.  I've cc'd 
>Kevin from fsr for you.
>
>They have a 1.5 mbps connection for $35/month but want me to use their Trango 
>5.3/5.8GHz antenna and a modem of their own spec that they want to sell to me.
>In addition to a $600 setup fee.
>
>
>
>mks:  H

Re: [WISPA] DC Inverter help

[John J. Thomas]

Mac, have you looked at these?


http://www.apcc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=203

John

Message-
>From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2006 07:34 PM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] DC Inverter help
>
>
>Can anyone give me a lead as to what I am looking for? I believe this
>http://tinyurl.com/lje7s is what I need, but I don't think I need 400Watts
>as all I will be pulling at several new tower sites are a few RB532's with
>their radios. I think I ought to keep the RB532s powered at 48VDC as they
>will be in excess of 200' up a tower. My intentions are to put a couple
>Marine batteries in an enclosure for back up power and have the DC inverter
>to keep them charged and have a seamless transfer if a power outage comes
>along. I have been putting these big honking APC UPSs in all my enclosures,
>but am trying to get something that will last longer in times of outages
>
>Any help would surely be a appreciated.
>
>Thanks folks,
>Mac 
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?

[John J. Thomas]

Multi mode fiber can go 550 meters, single mode can go 70 kilometers or more 
between repeaters.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:04 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>
>Marlon, how would you have done the ethernet?  I thought you were 
>restricted to basically 300 feet of ethernet without a 
>switch/router/booster every 300 feet or so, or am I missing something?  
>I have pole rights in town a $1/pole/yr so I'm trying to find an 
>affordable use of them.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
>> We use dry copper, wireless, fiber and dsl for backhaul.  I've not 
>> built my own fiber yet.  I'm sure the day is coming though.
>>
>> I really screwed up a few years ago.  The town had the sidewalks all 
>> out down town.  I should have found the money and put some conduit in 
>> at that time.  I could have ethernet or fiber connections to all of 
>> the down town businesses today!  sigh
>>
>> Marlon
>> (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>> 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Mike Delp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:31 AM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>
>>
>>> I am looking to talk with someone that has laid some fiber to complement
>>> their wireless operations.  We have a couple of leads we are looking at
>>> making some short hop backbones between towers, and having the cities 
>>> get
>>> involved as a customer of fiber, and hopefully it will pay for the 
>>> venture.
>>>
>>> On or off list replys welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?

[John J. Thomas]

2 Netgear FSM726   ~ $200 =  $ 400
2 Netgear AGM721F  ~ $285 =  $ 570
2 500 Meter SC SC patch cables ~ 779  =  $1558
+ conduit, trench etc.

is one way to go.

Antoher is ethernet extenders. These will let you go 4000 feet at 16.67 
Megabits per sec over voice grade twisted pair for about $600 per set.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 09:19 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>
>I know distance isn't as much of an issue with fiber, but Marlon talked 
>about ethernet *OR* fiber so I guess I was thinking ethernet over 
>standard copper and was wondering if I was missing something 
>simple/cheap to get/around over the 100m limit.
>
>    Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>
>>Multi mode fiber can go 550 meters, single mode can go 70 kilometers or more 
>>between repeaters.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:04 AM
>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>
>>>Marlon, how would you have done the ethernet?  I thought you were 
>>>restricted to basically 300 feet of ethernet without a 
>>>switch/router/booster every 300 feet or so, or am I missing something?  
>>>I have pole rights in town a $1/pole/yr so I'm trying to find an 
>>>affordable use of them.
>>>
>>>   Sam Tetherow
>>>   Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>We use dry copper, wireless, fiber and dsl for backhaul.  I've not 
>>>>built my own fiber yet.  I'm sure the day is coming though.
>>>>
>>>>I really screwed up a few years ago.  The town had the sidewalks all 
>>>>out down town.  I should have found the money and put some conduit in 
>>>>at that time.  I could have ethernet or fiber connections to all of 
>>>>the down town businesses today!  sigh
>>>>
>>>>Marlon
>>>>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>>>>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>>>>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>>>>64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>- Original Message - From: "Mike Delp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:31 AM
>>>>Subject: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>>I am looking to talk with someone that has laid some fiber to complement
>>>>>their wireless operations.  We have a couple of leads we are looking at
>>>>>making some short hop backbones between towers, and having the cities 
>>>>>get
>>>>>involved as a customer of fiber, and hopefully it will pay for the 
>>>>>venture.
>>>>>
>>>>>On or off list replys welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-- 
>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>
>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>
>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>-- 
>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?

[John J. Thomas]

:-)  I smile when I read the fiber specs sometimes. I understand that single 
mode was supposed to go 10 km, but some manufacturers got together and figured 
out that they can easily go 70 km. + 

John




>-Original Message-
>From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 09:10 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>
>Graded index 850nm/1300nm multimode, at least back in 1990 or so when I was
>a fiber tech, had basic specs that permitted 2km before repeating. I
>installed many projects with those distances before repeating. Actual
>equipment tolerances would have enabled the real distance to be much
>further. And that was with LED-based equipment, not even LASER.
>
>Patrick Leary
>AVP Marketing
>Alvarion, Inc.
>o: 650.314.2628
>c: 760.580.0080
>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:19 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>
>I know distance isn't as much of an issue with fiber, but Marlon talked 
>about ethernet *OR* fiber so I guess I was thinking ethernet over 
>standard copper and was wondering if I was missing something 
>simple/cheap to get/around over the 100m limit.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>
>>Multi mode fiber can go 550 meters, single mode can go 70 kilometers or
>more between repeaters.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:04 AM
>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>
>>>Marlon, how would you have done the ethernet?  I thought you were 
>>>restricted to basically 300 feet of ethernet without a 
>>>switch/router/booster every 300 feet or so, or am I missing something?  
>>>I have pole rights in town a $1/pole/yr so I'm trying to find an 
>>>affordable use of them.
>>>
>>>   Sam Tetherow
>>>   Sandhills Wireless
>>>
>>>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>We use dry copper, wireless, fiber and dsl for backhaul.  I've not 
>>>>built my own fiber yet.  I'm sure the day is coming though.
>>>>
>>>>I really screwed up a few years ago.  The town had the sidewalks all 
>>>>out down town.  I should have found the money and put some conduit in 
>>>>at that time.  I could have ethernet or fiber connections to all of 
>>>>the down town businesses today!  sigh
>>>>
>>>>Marlon
>>>>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>>>>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>>>>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>>>>64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>- Original Message - From: "Mike Delp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:31 AM
>>>>Subject: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>>I am looking to talk with someone that has laid some fiber to complement
>>>>>their wireless operations.  We have a couple of leads we are looking at
>>>>>making some short hop backbones between towers, and having the cities 
>>>>>get
>>>>>involved as a customer of fiber, and hopefully it will pay for the 
>>>>>venture.
>>>>>
>>>>>On or off list replys welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-- 
>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>
>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>
>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>

Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?

[John J. Thomas]

Oops, forgot the link

http://www.patton.com/products/pe_products.asp?category=162&tab=fb&MiDAS_SessionID=c71906728f2547be800411b59ae3244a

John



>-Original Message-----
>From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 07:39 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re:  [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>
>
>2 Netgear FSM726   ~ $200 =  $ 400
>2 Netgear AGM721F  ~ $285 =  $ 570
>2 500 Meter SC SC patch cables ~ 779  =  $1558
>+ conduit, trench etc.
>
>is one way to go.
>
>Antoher is ethernet extenders. These will let you go 4000 feet at 16.67 
>Megabits per sec over voice grade twisted pair for about $600 per set.
>
>John
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 09:19 AM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>
>>I know distance isn't as much of an issue with fiber, but Marlon talked 
>>about ethernet *OR* fiber so I guess I was thinking ethernet over 
>>standard copper and was wondering if I was missing something 
>>simple/cheap to get/around over the 100m limit.
>>
>>Sam Tetherow
>>Sandhills Wireless
>>
>>John J. Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>Multi mode fiber can go 550 meters, single mode can go 70 kilometers or more 
>>>between repeaters.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>-Original Message-
>>>>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:04 AM
>>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>>
>>>>Marlon, how would you have done the ethernet?  I thought you were 
>>>>restricted to basically 300 feet of ethernet without a 
>>>>switch/router/booster every 300 feet or so, or am I missing something?  
>>>>I have pole rights in town a $1/pole/yr so I'm trying to find an 
>>>>affordable use of them.
>>>>
>>>>   Sam Tetherow
>>>>   Sandhills Wireless
>>>>
>>>>Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We use dry copper, wireless, fiber and dsl for backhaul.  I've not 
>>>>>built my own fiber yet.  I'm sure the day is coming though.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really screwed up a few years ago.  The town had the sidewalks all 
>>>>>out down town.  I should have found the money and put some conduit in 
>>>>>at that time.  I could have ethernet or fiber connections to all of 
>>>>>the down town businesses today!  sigh
>>>>>
>>>>>Marlon
>>>>>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>>>>>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>>>>>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>>>>>64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
>>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>>>>>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>- Original Message - From: "Mike Delp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:31 AM
>>>>>Subject: [WISPA] Anyone mixing fiber with your wireless deployments?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am looking to talk with someone that has laid some fiber to complement
>>>>>>their wireless operations.  We have a couple of leads we are looking at
>>>>>>making some short hop backbones between towers, and having the cities 
>>>>>>get
>>>>>>involved as a customer of fiber, and hopefully it will pay for the 
>>>>>>venture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On or off list replys welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike
>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-- 
>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>
>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>
>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>-- 
>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Forgetful

[John J. Thomas]

Someone is missing a GOLDEN opportunity here. If someone setup a site that 
charged a *small* fee to be listed, and then maybe a smaller fee (per use) to 
search,they could possibly make some money. I don't think it is worth $250 per 
year to do tower searches. I would probably be willing to pay $20 for a months 
worth of searches though.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Blake Bowers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 07:49 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Forgetful
>
>There are a number of sites out there, including
>
>http://towers.conxx.net/
>
>http://www.towermaps.com/
>
>http://www.towersource.com/
>
>The problem with the first one is that it is simply a dump of
>the FCC data, and does not list any towers that are not
>registered with the FCC.
>
>The problem with the others is that while they list many
>towers that are not registered with the FCC, they charge
>for use.
>
>There is no source that lists ALL the towers out there.
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:27 AM
>Subject: [WISPA] Forgetful
>
>
>Recently, someone posted a website that linked to all the towers in the 
>country and that site was a listing of contact phone numbers for each tower.
>
>can you please post that site again.
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>Ross Cornett
>VP
>217 342 6201 ex 7
>HofNet Communications, Inc.
>www.HofNet-Communications.com
>
>HofNet-Communications.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] photo cell power

[John J. Thomas]

Yes, that's how the Cisco 1500's are powered. The company that makes the 
adapters also makes them for othter devices.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: [WISPA] photo cell power
>
>Has anyone powered radios directly off street light photo cell adapters?
>Any pros or cons would be appreciated.
>
> 
>
>Thanks
>
>chris
>
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] photo cell power

[John J. Thomas]

I don't remember the name offhand, the next time I get near one, I  will get it 
for you.

We have been disappointed with the convergence time, and distance coverage in 5 
GHz, but this may be due to a flaky AP. We will be doing some more work and 
range testing in the next couple of weeks. 

I think you had asked about the discount for Cisco wirelss purchases over 
25,000. I have got an exact answer, but the discount is in the 40-45% off list 
range.

John 


>-Original Message-
>From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 05:24 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] photo cell power
>
>Hi John,
>
>Do you know the name of the company which makes the adapters for Cisco?
>
>Also, how are the 1500s holding up?
>
>Best,
>-- 
>Dylan Oliver
>Primaverity, LLC
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] photo cell power

[John J. Thomas]

inline
>-Original Message-
>From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 03:22 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re:  [WISPA] photo cell power
>
>I don't remember the name offhand, the next time I get near one, I  will get 
>it for you.
>
>We have been disappointed with the convergence time, and distance coverage in 
>5 GHz, but this may be due to a flaky AP. We will be doing some more work and 
>range testing in the next couple of weeks.
>
>I think you had asked about the discount for Cisco wireless purchases over 
>25,000. I **don't** have an exact answer, but the discount is in the 40-45% 
>off list range.
>
>John
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 05:24 PM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] photo cell power
>>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>Do you know the name of the company which makes the adapters for Cisco?
>>
>>Also, how are the 1500s holding up?
>>
>>Best,
>>--
>>Dylan Oliver
>>Primaverity, LLC
>>
>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik Help

[John J. Thomas]

How many is "some"? They may be boxes that have been compromised with a worm, 
trojan, virus or spyware. Look closely at the destination ports they are 
connecting to. If the addresses/ports are in sequence, they may have malware on 
their PC.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Ron Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 04:24 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik Help
>
>To all,
>
>I have some abusive users, when I look at IP Firewall Connections I find a 
>some users with over a hundred (100) instances listed in the source address 
>column. I think its flooding my network. I have 2 T1's and 81 users. We're 
>growing faster than I can install new customers.
>
>I am using Canopy 900, Canopy 2.45, & Tranzeo 2.45. I have activated the SM, 
>SNMP, BOOTP Server and Client filters on the canopy devices.
>
>How can I limit the number of active instances of these abusive users on the 
>Mikrotik?
>
>Ron Wallace
>Hahnron, Inc.
>220 S. Jackson Dt.
>Addison, MI 49220
>
>Phone: (517)547-8410
>Mobile: (517)605-4542
>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] fiber connection for bridgewave

[John J. Thomas]

Does $400 include terminating ans testing Single mode? That is very cheap if 
so. Even for multi mode, $400 is a reasonable rate.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Brad Belton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2006 09:16 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] fiber connection for bridgewave
>
>We've always contracted out our fiber work, but be careful as not all fiber
>techs are equal in their abilities.  
>
>We've settled on a group that is reasonable for small jobs and charges us
>$400 for eight connectors total including travel and parts.  They do a great
>job no matter what type connector or type of fiber used.
>
>We tried a cheaper fiber group once.  After several attempts by two
>different techs they told us the fiber we had was bad they couldn't shoot
>any light through it.  I said thank you very much, "here's your sign" and
>asked them to leave.  
>
>Next day the fiber was terminated by our usual group.  That was a few years
>ago and we haven't felt it necessary to look for another fiber tech since.
>
>Best,
>
>Brad
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mario Pommier
>Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:25 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] fiber connection for bridgewave
>
>Has anyone here delved into the option of terminating fiber runs for a 
>bridgewave gigabit link?
>What's more economical -- to hire out the termination job or getting 
>training and buying the terminating equipment onself?
>If the latter, where have you gotten the training and equipment?  (I've 
>heard the equipment is expensive).
>
>Mario
>
>
>---
>[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network

[John J. Thomas]

One to One NATing is good except that it breaks H.323, and would limit VPN 
usage. Yes, there are Businesses that do Netmeeting and other H.323 
applications as well as VPNs.

JT

>-Original Message-
>From: Mark McElvy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 04:07 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
>
>In the end I feel routed is better because you grow, a bridged network
>will get loud (lots of overhead traffic).
>
> 
>
>You manage the CPE in a routed network just as you do now. What maybe
>you see is the difference between true routes and NAT routes. With true
>routes there is a path to and from each subnet. You can easily get to
>the web interface of each CPE in a properly routed network. A NAT router
>hides the network behind the "WAN" address whether its private or public
>and all traffic coming from the NAT subnet appears as if its coming from
>the "WAN" address. Tranzeo APs, last time I tried, will not do true
>routing only NAT routing.
>
> 
>
>I also like the idea of one to one NATing the Public IP to the private
>ip of the customer.
>
> 
>
>Mark McElvy
>
>AccuBak Data Systems, Inc.
>
>573-729-9200
>
> 
>
>
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Jason Hensley
>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:32 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
>
> 
>
>Ok, this may be a simple question, but I'm trying to figure the best way
>to do this.  My wireless network is currently all bridged with three
>different POP's (all statically assigned private IP's).  I'm getting
>requests for public IP addresses and as I add more clients, I feel like
>I'm really going to need to have a routed network. 
>
> 
>
>My biggest question is, how do you manage your CPE remotely in a routed
>network?  Right now I'm pretty much 90% Tranzeo gear (mixture of
>CPE-15's and CPQ gear).  If a customer calls with performance or other
>problems, I'm able to log into their CPE from here to see what's going
>on from that end.  I would much rather maintain that ability but not
>sure how to do that with a routed network.  
>
> 
>
>Also, I would ideally like to have a public IP assigned to each CPE.
>The double NAT'ing I've got going right now has been causing a few
>issues, plus, I'm getting more business customers that want VPN and
>Remote Access to their network.  
>
> 
>
>I realize this will take subnetting to make it happen.  I've got a /24
>right now and can easily bump to more when needed.  
>
> 
>
>How are the rest of you handling your setups like this?  
>
> 
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
> 
>
>
>
>Jason Hensley, MCP+I
>President
>
>Mozarks Technologies
>909 Preacher Roe Blvd
>West Plains, MO  65775
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.mozarks.com
>
>417.256.7946
>417.257.2415 (fax) 
>
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant

[John J. Thomas]

These guys have the right idea...

http://www.fiberinternetcenter.com/

John


>-Original Message-
>From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:39 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
>
>And this is why I planning a fiber roll out in my town.
>
>I can see the spectrum - bandwidth limitations of a pure wireless play 
>and would like to be able to "run with the big dogs" When they start 
>cranking up their stuff.
>
>George
>
>Mike Hammett wrote:
>> BINGO!
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
>> 
>> 
>>> Isn't the reason they are replacing some of their copper with fiber is 
>>> because they then do not have to allow competition to ride their wires?
>>> Old wires old rules, new fiber new rules?
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> Peter R. wrote:
 The AT&T (originally SBC) VDSL plan requires copper to the home. 
 Fiber to the neighborhood.

 In VZ region, they are pulling out copper as fast as they can & 
 replacing it with fiber. (FiOS is FTTH not FTTN).
 VZ even clips the copper when they install your FiOS.
 And what VZ isn't replacing, thieves are stealing, since copper is 
 easy to sell.

 VZ's union is even claiming that VZ is not maintaining the copper 
 plant in some areas.

 If you watch the FCC network notifications, there is more copper 
 replacement being done this year then ever before.

 - Peter

 Steve Stroh wrote:

> Clint:
>
> No, not really, as AT&T is betting on copper only in the last few 
> hundred
> feet to the premises. While they're not going to do 
> fiber-to-the-premises,
> they will be doing a fiber infrastructure.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 6/15/07, Clint Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> AT&T is betting on copper for the next 5-10 years for the next 5-10 
>> years.
>> I think that, alone, about disbunks this article.
>>
>> -Clint
>>
>


>>>
>>> -- 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>> 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Fiber

[John J. Thomas]

If the drop is 550', you can use Multi mode and the termination is considerably 
cheaper.

As for individual strands, there is probably a balance where it makes sense to 
not necessarily drop 128 strands, but do something more than 6 strands. 


John


>-Original Message-
>From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 04:04 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fiber
>
>Thanks for offering to help,
>
>
>Here's what I have.
>My noc is across a creek from a water tank that I have a dozen ap's on. 
>So I have to do aerial to get there. I want to use an aerial cable that 
>has a lot of fibers in it. So I can put each radio on it's own fiber and 
>not have a switch at the tank.
>I also want to extend the rest of the unused fibers out to do a fiber to 
>the premises roll out.
>
>What I'm not sure is what type or size of fiber to pull, considering I 
>want to break it out and go down the street.
>I'm assuming single mode and I'm thinking this drop is short, 550', I 
>can use like 128 strands.
>
>I am assuming going up the street to the homes, It would be a PON network.
>
>So I'm not sure of the fiber, or the network equipment behind it.
>
>George
>
>
>Scott Reed wrote:
>> I may not get you all the answers, but here are some questions you need 
>> to answer to get answers:
>> How far do you want to go?
>> What kind of data and data rates are you looking for?
>> What equipment is at the ends?
>> Hanging from poles, buried, etc.?
>> 
>> 
>> George Rogato wrote:
>>> Anyone do fiber?
>>> I'm wondering where I should be looking for good pricing on some 
>>> aerial fiber.
>>> I don't know very much about fiber at all, so I also need some advice 
>>> on what fiber I should be using as well as what connectors.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any experience?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> 
>
>-- 
>George Rogato
>
>Welcome to WISPA
>
>www.wispa.org
>
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>





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] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro

[John J Thomas]

Does anyone know where I can get one of these? I'm hearing 6-8 week back order?

Otherwise, what other devices might be competitive?
Needs to be 

802.11 a/b/g/n
Standard 802.11af POE
Indoor model



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro

[John J Thomas]

I'm not familiar with that, is it on their web site?

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Hammett [mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net]
>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:08 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>
>Have you tried the UBNT stock locator?
>
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John J Thomas" 
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:13:25 PM
>Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>
>Does anyone know where I can get one of these? I'm hearing 6-8 week back order?
>
>Otherwise, what other devices might be competitive?
>Needs to be 
>
>802.11 a/b/g/n
>Standard 802.11af POE
>Indoor model
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro

[John J Thomas]

Thanks, much appreciated.

John 

>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Hammett [mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net]
>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 06:35 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>
>Yes. Google for exactly what I said.
>
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John J Thomas" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:36:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>
>I'm not familiar with that, is it on their web site?
>
>John
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Mike Hammett [mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net]
>>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:08 AM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>>
>>Have you tried the UBNT stock locator?
>>
>>
>>
>>-
>>Mike Hammett
>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "John J Thomas" 
>>To: wireless@wispa.org
>>Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:13:25 PM
>>Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti UniFi AP Pro
>>
>>Does anyone know where I can get one of these? I'm hearing 6-8 week back 
>>order?
>>
>>Otherwise, what other devices might be competitive?
>>Needs to be 
>>
>>802.11 a/b/g/n
>>Standard 802.11af POE
>>Indoor model
>>
>>
>>
>>___
>>Wireless mailing list
>>Wireless@wispa.org
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>___
>>Wireless mailing list
>>Wireless@wispa.org
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[John J Thomas]

I realize that many here hate the Cisco word, but all their radios are DFS 
compliant.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Art Stephens [mailto:asteph...@ptera.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 08:29 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
>
>Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of
>these frequencies.
>Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that
>platform.
>First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about
>40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840
>runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,
>Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
>Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with
>it.
>Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.
>Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports
>5170-5875.
>
>Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more
>money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both
>wisps and consumers.
>
>-- 
>Arthur Stephens
>Senior Networking Technician
>Ptera Inc.
>PO Box 135
>24001 E Mission Suite 50
>Liberty Lake, WA 99019
>509-927-7837
>ptera.com
>facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera
> -
>"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is
>intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
>Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or
>opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not
>intended to represent those of the company."
>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[John J Thomas]

I realize that many here hate the Cisco word, but all their radios are DFS 
compliant.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Art Stephens [mailto:asteph...@ptera.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 08:29 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
>
>Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of
>these frequencies.
>Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that
>platform.
>First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about
>40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840
>runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,
>Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
>Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with
>it.
>Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.
>Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports
>5170-5875.
>
>Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more
>money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both
>wisps and consumers.
>
>-- 
>Arthur Stephens
>Senior Networking Technician
>Ptera Inc.
>PO Box 135
>24001 E Mission Suite 50
>Liberty Lake, WA 99019
>509-927-7837
>ptera.com
>facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera
> -
>"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is
>intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
>Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or
>opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not
>intended to represent those of the company."
>


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?

[John J Thomas]

Cisco 3560 series are about $4000...

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Nick [mailto:lists-wi...@atomsplash.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 11:18 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
>
>They need to run up to 1Gbps. ATT is installing a 1Gbps connection. 
>Realistically I don't think they'll use that all of the time, probably 
>in the 500-750Mbps range. No clue on average packet size.
>
>On 2/2/2011 10:57 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:
>>
>> How much real throughput do they need?  Any idea of the average packet 
>> size?
>>
>> You could use an ImageStream Rebel router for a WHOLE LOT less than 
>> the Cisco:
>>
>> http://www.imagestream.com/Rebel.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeff
>> ImageStream Sales Manager
>> 800-813-5123 x106
>>
>> 
>>
>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> *On Behalf Of *Nick
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:16 PM
>> *To:* us...@wug.cc; WISPA General List
>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
>>
>> I have a customer that needs a router capable of routing up to 1Gbps of
>> traffic - AT&T Ethernet handoff. Should only really need 1 WAN port and
>> 1 LAN port. What's everyone else using? They have shunned the idea of a
>> RouterMaxx or PowerRouter. They prefer to stick with Cisco, Adtran, or
>> Foundry.
>>
>> Cisco doesn't seem too cost effective; the only thing I've found that
>> will run that much traffic is a 7206 with a G2. Anything newer and we're
>> in the $20k-$40k range.
>>
>> Should I be looking at Layer 3 switches? They shouldn't need any
>> firewall or filtering on this device.
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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 message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3418 - Release Date: 02/02/11
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?

[John J Thomas]

3560s are layer 3 switches that are current product..

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Blake Bowers [mailto:bbow...@mozarks.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 10:36 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
>
>Naturally - and I have stacks of 3660's that are barely above scrap 
>value.
>
>
>Don't take your organs to heaven,
>heaven knows we need them down here!
>Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "John J Thomas" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
>
>
>> Cisco 3560 series are about $4000...
>>
>
>
>
>
>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] Neat tool

[John J. Thomas]

I have one, and it works well. This is a very handy tool.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Brian Rohrbacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 09:40 PM
>To: 'Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization'
>Subject: [WISPA] Neat tool
>
>Just found this.  Anyone ever have a tower, silo, rooftop owner ask how 
>much electric your gear will use?  This thing is slick.
>
>http://www.ahernstore.com/p4400.html   (if it comes to search box type 
>in meter)
>
>Nope, I don't know these people and have no reason to post this other 
>than it might just be another tool for the "WISP Toolbag"
>So, unless someone smarter than me thinks this thing is a bad idea, I 
>might just get one.
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>Sale: *$34.95*pad
>
>
>  *Kill A Watt Electricty Load Meter and Monitor*
>
> Kill A Watt Electricty Load Meter 
>and Monitor.
>
>*Watts killing you?* Connect your appliances into the P3 Kill A Watt 
>Meter, and assess how efficient they are. The Kill A Watt features a 
>large LCD display that counts consumption by the Kilowatt-hour just like 
>utility companies.
>
>Kill A Watt Meter allows you to figure out your electrical expenses by 
>the hour, day, week, month, even an entire year. The Kill A Watt will 
>monitor the quality of your power by displaying Voltage, Line Frequency, 
>and Power Factor.
>
>-- 
>Brian Rohrbacher
>Reliable Internet, LLC
>www.reliableinter.net
>Cell 269-838-8338
>
>"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17
>
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DNS Name Resolver for WISP

[John J. Thomas]

As an ISP, you might consider blocking malware sites.  OpenDNS used to be free 
for anyone that wanted to use it,  businesses included, but they changed their 
terms of service.  What they told us was the free service used a database that 
didn't get updated very frequently,  and filtered about 5000 malware sites. 
When you used the paid for service, there were like 100,000 malware sites in 
that database. We met with them awhile back, when they were still developing 
their Active Directory implementation. 

On June 23, 2016 12:56:42 PM PDT, Colton Conor  wrote:
>What dns name solvers do you use to hand out to your customers via DHCP
>and
>why? Today we just hand out Google's 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as a name
>resolvers. I recently learned about OpenDNS's free service for homes
>where
>a home user can monitor and potentially block certain websites, but
>that
>would require the home to signup at open dns, and then enter open DNS
>in
>their router. However if we handed out OpenDNS's IPs instead of
>googles,
>and provided a gateway, then that would remove that step of the client
>having to enter opendns IPs into their router right?
>
>Does OpenDNS have a service for ISP's? That gives us insight as to
>where
>traffic on our network is heading based dns lookups? I know about
>Netflow
>etc, but doing this though DNS seems like a cool option as well. We
>wouldn't want to block anything as an ISP, but it would be useful to
>know
>the top visited site by our customers is facebook.com for example.
>
>If not OpenDNS, then is there some other hosted DNS service for ISP's?
>
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council

[John J. Thomas]

The theory is that "routing slots" cost money. If you have a /19 and consume a 
routing slot there is x cost. If you have a /8 and consume a routing slot then 
the cost is nearly the same. Even if that is the case, it still seems the 
pricing should be more linear.

John
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 08:41 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of
>Candidates  Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council
>
>Agreed.  At first I was told it was that the IP's were getting scare but the
>IPV6 addresses aren't much cheaper.  Lies, all lies.  
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:37 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Support a WISP on ARIN's board- Final Slate of Candidates
>Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council
>
>
>I wanted to point out that we have an allie WISP and friend running for 
>ARIN's Advisory board.
>
> He is... Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet
> (also known from Virginia ISP association)
>
> Please offer your support and vote, if you have an AS and eligible to vote.
>
> Why is IP space so expensive? Why do small ISPs pay the bulk of the cost,
> and large providers pay next to nothing per IP?
> Because  ARIN's board usually was comprised of large ISPs.
>
> Lets get the voice of small ISPs to the ARIN board!
>
> If you agree, spread the word.  Link to Voting listed below...
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> 301-515-7774
> IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "ARIN Member Services" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:29 PM
>> Subject: Final Slate of Candidates Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees 
>> and Advisory Council
>>
>>
>>> Elections for three (3) seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and five (5) 
>>> seats
>>> on the ARIN Advisory Council will be held online 21-31 October. Details 
>>> of the
>>> election procedures will be presented at the 21 October Public Policy 
>>> Meeting
>>> and will be posted on ARIN's website.
>>>
>>> The final slate of candidates is:
>>>
>>> Board of Trustees:
>>> * Paul Andersen, EGATE Networks, Inc.
>>> * Scott Bradner, Harvard University
>>> * Lee Howard, Time Warner Cable
>>> * Aaron Hughes, 6connect
>>> * Frederick Silny, Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc.
>>>
>>> Advisory Council:
>>> * Mark Bayliss, Visual Link Internet
>>> * John Brown, Citylink Fiber Holdings
>>> * Rudolf Daniel, Independent
>>> * Steve Feldman, CBS Interactive
>>> * Wes George, Sprint
>>> * Chris Grundemann, TW Telecom Inc / CO ISOC
>>> * Stacy Hughes, Guavus, Inc
>>> * Kevin Hunt, Hunt Brothers of Louisiana, LLC
>>> * Mark Johnson, MCNC
>>> * Ed Kern, Cisco
>>> * Chris Morrow, Google
>>> * Christopher Savage, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
>>> * Heather Schiller, Verizon
>>> * Rob Seastrom, Afilias
>>> * Scott Weeks, Hawaiian Telcom
>>> * Tom Zeller, Indiana University
>>>
>>> Thomas Leonard and Bill Sandiford did not receive the 172 petition 
>>> signatures
>>> from designated member representatives to be included on the final slate 
>>> of
>>> candidates for the Advisory Council. Additionally note that on 29 
>>> September
>>> Kevin Kargel withdrew his candidacy from the Advisory Council.
>>>
>>> Many of the candidates will address the membership at the 21 October 
>>> Members
>>> Meeting in Dearborn. Individuals unable to attend the meeting can watch 
>>> the
>>> live webcast to hear the speeches. These candidate speeches will be 
>>> posted to
>>> the website within 3 days. Brief biographies and a form to voice support 
>>> for
>>> candidates can be found at:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/app/election/
>>>
>>> Designated member representatives (DMR) from ARIN's General Members in 
>>> good
>>> standing will be eligible to vote for three (3) candidates in the Board
>>> election and five (5) candidates in the Advisory Council election. ARIN 
>>> Member
>>> Services requires a name and personalized e-mail address be on record for
>
>>> the
>>> DMR; role accounts are not acceptable. As stated in previous 
>>> announcements,
>>> the deadline for establishing voter eligibility was 7 October 2009.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>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! Jo

Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections

[John J. Thomas]

FWIW, Cisco 871's will route wirespeed at 100 megabits/sec, but can only 
firewall/NAT/VPN at 25 megabits/sec.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Al Stewart [mailto:stewa...@westcreston.ca]
>Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 03:05 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
>
>Thanks Tom ...
>
>I know some of the cheaper wireless routers on our system have been 
>causing speed problems for various reasons. And I can see the reasons 
>for the problems. But for most people, I guess a router is a router, 
>and they don't want to spend big bucks.
>
>For myself, I'm looking to replace my own personal D-Link DI-704P 
>(wired) with another wired unit. Researching models gives all kinds 
>of conflicting info/complaints/recommendations. Someone here 
>recommended, so I guess I'll see what I can track down on that.
>
>Al
>
>-- At 05:54 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: ---
>
>>Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons.
>>
>>1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent
>>throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit
>>gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput.  Its not
>>uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same
>>brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it
>>is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't
>>originally capable..
>>
>>2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is
>>just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers
>>have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not
>>just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be
>>optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network
>>buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL,
>>may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve
>>RAM, and use less ram to lower costs.
>>
>>However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually
>>do fine up at higher speeds.  Also be cautious of using a VPN router,
>>because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the
>>tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed.  The best thing to do is to
>>certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont
>>believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results.
>>
>>The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test
>>the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises?
>>If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know
>>it is?
>>
>>This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to
>>have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly
>>to the router.
>>In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through
>>it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it.  Having fast
>>processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem.
>>
>>
>>Tom DeReggi
>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Al Stewart" 
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
>>
>>
>> > Thanks ... this helps.
>> >
>> > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or
>> > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can
>> > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times
>> > at least what the
>> > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers
>> > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of
>> > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be
>> > ALL the routers in the system.
>> >
>> > Al
>> >
>> > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: ---
>> >
>> >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to
>> >>address those conditions.
>> >>The problem gets worse when  Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets
>> >>and/or
>> >>lots of uploads.
>> >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics.
>> >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead
>> >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down.
>> >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios
>> >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing
>> >>to
>> >>be up or down during the congestion time.
>> >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its
>> >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download
>> >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download.
>> >>Therfore
>> >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited
>> >>amount
>> >>of upload

Re: [WISPA] Ideas on Police Department Wireless Link from Stationto Cruiser

[John J. Thomas]

If you are working with law enforcement, they generraly need FIPs compliance on 
anything that touches their network.

John
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
>Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:05 PM
>To: lakel...@gbcx.net, ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ideas on Police Department Wireless Link from 
>Stationto   Cruiser
>
>Yeah, that's the part I was leery of when he asked.  I knew there were some
>sort of safeguards that had to be followed and I'm totally green in that
>area.  We've done a few medical sites that had to be HIPPA compliant and it
>wasn't such a big deal but I hate messing with the cops.  They have other
>ways to complain other than not paying an invoice.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net
>Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:49 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ideas on Police Department Wireless Link from Stationto
>Cruiser
>
>Be careful of the new federal encryption requirements for anything hooked up
>to the National Crime Computers. 
>
>A lot of states have new rules also when interfacing to the state DMV and
>crime networks
>
>Just FYI
>
>-B-
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jayson Baker 
>Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:37:26 
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ideas on Police Department Wireless Link from Station
>   to Cruiser
>
>We currently do this for a local PD.  They have 13 of those ruggedized Dell
>laptops, mounted in all the cars.
>We looked at 2.4GHz and 900MHz.  Even though the town is only 5sqmi, we
>decided to go with Verizon Aircards.
>
>Worked out well, because the laptops are tied directly into their CAD
>system, which is tied into the whole state.
>So now they could, theoretically, go anywhere in the state and be dispatched
>on a call, run plates/people through NCIC, etc.
>
>I believe that because of that, they actually got the state to pay for a lot
>of it.
>
>Sure, we don't make anything on the Verizon service, but we do on the
>backend by tying their CAD into the Internet.
>
>Just something to keep in mind, if you have any sort of 3G service in that
>area.
>
>Jayson
>
>On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Robert West
>wrote:
>
>> I got a call Friday afternoon from the police chief of a small little spot
>> in the road asking about the possibility of connecting his cruisers to the
>> station network via a wireless link.  (He is the "Police Chief" but I
>> suspect he is also the entire police force)  He said that the local
>> Wal-Mart
>> has agreed to donate to him a few of those little Acer 7" screen laptops,
>> which are a big piece of crap from the number of repairs we've had to do
>on
>> them...  Anyhow, he wants to be able to be in the cruiser and connect to
>> the
>> network back at the station and use the websites from the Attorney
>> General's
>> office where he can run plates, drivers license info and also fill out his
>> reports.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's the setup..
>>
>>
>>
>> This Burg is a bit less than 2 miles long and about one and a half miles
>> wide.  The town hall is equivalent to a 4 story building and they also
>have
>> a water tower that looks to be 100 foot tall.  The terrain is flat as can
>> be
>> and they have the normal scattering of trees.  The Town Hall and water
>> tower
>> are the tallest structures by far aside from a large grain elevator right
>> outside of town.  Boy wants to connect to his network anywhere in town
>from
>> his cop-mobile as well as when he is at home, also within the town.
>>
>>
>>
>> We've done plenty of private networks but it's all been in the 2.4 and
>5ghz
>> band.  He was thinking he could just throw up a 2.4ghz link and be good
>but
>> I told him to hold on, I didn't think he could broadcast the Attorney
>> Generals network to every antenna in town, I had to do some research.  So
>> this, because of my utterly blatant laziness, is my research. J
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone been down this path?  What can we do and not do?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a meeting with the guy next Wednesday and want to have some idea of
>> what we're up against on this one.  (Hopefully he doesn't recognize me as
>> the guy who took him to court over a ticket he wrote for a crooked license
>> plate...  I won that one by the way)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert West
>>
>> Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
>>
>> 740-335-7020
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> 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] Berber carpet

[John J. Thomas]

Is there any reason you don't just cut an X in the carpter and then trim it?

John

>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:j...@scrivner.com]
>Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 08:18 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Berber carpet
>
>You need to use a sharp razor knife to cut a slit about 3 inches long along
>the grain of the carpet. Then hold the carpet to the side as you drill.
>Scriv
>
>
>On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM, RickG  wrote:
>
>> How do you guys drill holes through berber carpet withour pulling the
>> threads?
>> I have the "cutting tool" but thread still grab onto the drill bit.
>> I've thought about finding a metal tube to put the drill into so it
>> doesnt catch the carpet.
>> Thoughts?
>> -RickG
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Mesh just for kicks

[John J. Thomas]

You DO NOT have to use a CLI to do firewalling nowadays. Cisco has the SDM for 
routers, and the ASDM for ASA's.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: e...@wisp-router.com [mailto:e...@wisp-router.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 07:26 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>
>Winbox. Then very little need for CLI. There is nothing you can not do through 
>winbox that you can not do through CLI. Scripting most people do not use it or 
>just use it to execute simple CLI instructions. You have a bunch of script 
>samples on wiki.mikrotik.com. 
>Like with any advanced networking product there is a little learning curve. 
>But reason why most people have problems getting a grip on MikroTik is that 
>their network knowledge is limited so they have problem understanding the 
>routing concept and understanding how ip works and flows with its source 
>ports, destination ports so they have issues creating firewall rules etc. On 
>the WISP-Training Mikrotik class (the training material Butch and me created) 
>the primary reason it was created was to teach how routing, sub netting and ip 
>flows worked and of course from a view point in how to configure this with 
>MikroTik. It's a whole lot easier to get running then say a Cisco router where 
>everything have to be CLI and firewalling rule creation imo is very cryptic 
>and not very straight forward. 
>
>/Eje Gustafsson
>CTO
>WISP-Router, Inc
>Bringing MikroTik to the masses since 2002. 
>Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
>-Original Message-
>From: os10ru...@gmail.com
>
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:38:04 
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>
>
>Mr. Burgess,
>
>   What frightens me about taking the leap into Mikrotik is it appears  
>the web interface is of no use in the advanced configuration and it  
>sounds like one must get heavily into the CLI and scripting. I don't  
>see an online repository of scripts for programming or even a highly  
>detailed help/wiki online. I'm guessing too many people are making too  
>much money doing their Mikrotik training to give it away for free. So  
>because of the apparently steep learning curve I'm leery to make the  
>leap. The more easily configurable (and less powerful) solutions such  
>as Ubiquiti look more appealing to me at this point.
>
>   Would you disagree with my perspective? Is making the leap not that  
>bad?
>
>Greg
>On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>
>> Ya, don't know why ya don't want a MT solution.  Been there done that
>> and it works :)
>>
>> * ---
>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>> WISPA Vendor Member*
>> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
>> 
>> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
>> 
>>
>> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by  
>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is  
>> intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
>> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged  
>> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,  
>> or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by  
>> persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is  
>> prohibited, If you
>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the  
>> material from any computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> e...@wisp-router.com wrote:
>>> MT and a consultant ;)
>>>
>>> /me laughing while running for cover
>>>
>>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Scott Vander Dussen 
>>>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:13:03
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking to deploy a small mesh network downtown in a small city  
>>> just for kicks.  Low budget ($4k for ~10 nodes) - just want to get  
>>> my feet wet and have some fun.
>>>
>>> I'd charge for the service if it was easy enough to do and it  
>>> worked good enough to justify a cost, otherwise free.  Was hoping  
>>> there is was a turn-key solution (PLEASE don't suggest Mikrotik - I  
>>> could ask for a recommendation on how to remove chest hair and  
>>> someone will mention MT).  Anyhow, turn-key like Meraki advertises  
>>> would be cool.  How about the Pico2HP - is there a firmware that  
>>> works on those that could mesh?  Very new to mesh - thanks in  
>>> advance.
>>>
>>> `S
>>>
>>> PS- Please don't hijack the thread defending how great MT is and  
>>> how it can save the world etc.. not bashing, just want plug+play  
>>> which != MT.  (:
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wis

Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks

[John J. Thomas]

Some MME info

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MME_wireless_routing_protocol

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:sarn...@info-ed.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 09:34 PM
>To: e...@wisp-router.com, 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>
>Too give credit where credit is due...did not a university do this to begin 
>with that worked really well...and all other versions are built on it?
>
>Scottie
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: e...@wisp-router.com
>Reply-To: e...@wisp-router.com, WISPA General List 
>Date:  Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:36:32 +
>
>>MikroTik has its MME implementation that is what should be used instead of 
>>using WDS for a mesh setup. MME is as true mesh as it gets. 
>>
>>/Eje
>>Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Harold Bledsoe 
>>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:52:39 
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>>
>>
>>Well there is also the mesh part too.  Is this what you guys are talking
>>about when you say MT mesh:  http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Mesh_wds
>>
>>If so, I would disagree that this is a "good" mesh implementation.
>>There are many, many more factors to consider when building an
>>infrastructure mesh.  The LigoMesh products take into account signal
>>strength, hops from GW, node load, datarate, etc. to calculate the best
>>path.  Also, there are dedicated radios for uplink/downlink/service set
>>to give high performance.
>>
>>On the other hand, if you don't need a carrier-grade infrastructure
>>mesh, Wiligear products based on the WBD-500 do support Open-Mesh and
>>should be available in the very near future on Streakwave's website with
>>the option to have them preloaded with Open-mesh (board, indoor, and
>>outdoor selections).
>>
>>I guess what I'm saying is that not all products are created equal and
>>there is certainly a place for each one.  Just be sure you know what you
>>are getting!
>>
>>-Hal
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: os10ru...@gmail.com
>>Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>>To: WISPA General List 
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks
>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:38:04 -0430
>>
>>Mr. Burgess,
>>
>>  What frightens me about taking the leap into Mikrotik is it appears  
>>the web interface is of no use in the advanced configuration and it  
>>sounds like one must get heavily into the CLI and scripting. I don't  
>>see an online repository of scripts for programming or even a highly  
>>detailed help/wiki online. I'm guessing too many people are making too  
>>much money doing their Mikrotik training to give it away for free. So  
>>because of the apparently steep learning curve I'm leery to make the  
>>leap. The more easily configurable (and less powerful) solutions such  
>>as Ubiquiti look more appealing to me at this point.
>>
>>  Would you disagree with my perspective? Is making the leap not that  
>>bad?
>>
>>Greg
>>On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> Ya, don't know why ya don't want a MT solution.  Been there done that
>>> and it works :)
>>>
>>> * ---
>>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org 
>>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>> WISPA Vendor Member*
>>> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
>>> 
>>> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
>>> 
>>>
>>> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by  
>>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is  
>>> intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which
>>> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged  
>>> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,  
>>> or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by  
>>> persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is  
>>> prohibited, If you
>>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the  
>>> material from any computer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> e...@wisp-router.com wrote:
 MT and a consultant ;)

 /me laughing while running for cover

 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: Scott Vander Dussen 

 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:13:03
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Mesh just for kicks


 Looking to deploy a small mesh network downtown in a small city  
 just for kicks.  Low budget ($4k for ~10 nodes) - just want to get  
 my feet wet and have some fun.

 I'd charge for the service if it was easy enough to do and it  
 worked good enough to justify a cost, otherwise free.  Was hoping  
 there is was a turn-key solution (PLEASE don't suggest Mikrotik - I  
 could ask for

Re: [WISPA] Custom Rackmount Enclosures?

[John J. Thomas]

Would it be possible to modify a Mini ITX 1U rack mount enclosure? I think you 
can find them for under $200.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Brad Belton [mailto:b...@belwave.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 08:22 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Custom Rackmount Enclosures?
>
>I looked into this for a custom 2U enclosure.  Came in around $600-$800 per
>cabinet.  Let me know if you find someone that can build custom enclosures
>for less.
>
>Best,
>
>
>Brad
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Gino Villarini
>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:04 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Custom Rackmount Enclosures?
>
>Anyone know of a metal fab to make some custom 1u enclosures for
>Mikrotik Routerboards?
> 
>
>Gino A. Villarini 
>g...@aeronetpr.com 
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>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] Fwd: Fiber cut in SF area

[John J. Thomas]

www.covadwireless.com

They service a large chunk of the SF Bay Area and some of the Los Angeles area.

John 


>-Original Message-
>From: Travis Johnson [mailto:t...@ida.net]
>Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 05:20 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Fiber cut in SF area
>
>
>
>
>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] Senate Bill

[John J. Thomas]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us

[John J. Thomas]

I hope they don't charge more for IPv6. Currently ARIN is offering discounts 
for those that want to deploy IPv6, and they are considering making IPv4 cost 
more as time goes on in order to "push" IPv6 adoption.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Anthony R. Mattke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 06:55 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us
>
>As far as vendors go, I've seen the same thing on our end, I'm pretty 
>sure none of our CPE supports it as of yet, the only thing that does is 
>our routers. I would like to say that Imagestream has been great as far 
>as getting us updated with IPv6 tools,  their engineers are working on 
>quite a few exciting things that I think are going to help the migration 
>of IPv6 into our network.
>
>We just got our allocation last Friday, I think out of all of our 
>upstreams, only 2 do IPv6 on their own backbone. And honestly I'm a bit 
>worried to contact one of them..  they're going to want to charge us for it.
>
>-Tony
>
>Bryan Scott wrote:
>> Anthony R. Mattke wrote:
>>> Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us 
>>> looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our 
>>> next step.
>>>
>>>   What about IPv6->IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on 
>> their network yet?
>> 
>> I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on 
>> Linux and OS X.  That's as far as I got.
>> 
>>> There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 
>>> integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as 
>>> far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested.
>> 
>> We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 
>> allocation.  The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was 
>> that nobody's eating their own dog food.  All the vendors are making 
>> IPv6 "compliant" gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various 
>> issues in their testing).
>> 
>> That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody 
>> deploys.  Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it 
>> works.  A big chicken-and-egg problem...
>> 
>> After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers 
>> about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would 
>> work.  They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or 
>> couldn't do it.
>> 
>> -- Bryan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>-- 
>
>Anthony R. Mattke
>Senior Network Engineer
>CyberLink International
>888.293.3693 x4353
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[John J. Thomas]

Let's talk about this for a minute.

When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the 
rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore.

If you, as a WISP say here are your options

1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want
2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns the 
equipment

How will you lose? 
  
John Thomas


>-Original Message-
>From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
>
>I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their 
>boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I 
>think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents.
>
>Scottie
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>Date:  Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600
>
>>
>
>Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
>Check out www.info-ed.com for information.
>
>
>
>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] Bragging on Mikrotik

[John J. Thomas]

Butch, to do Layer 3 fast roaming, Cisco uses GRE tunnels into a WLSM module. 
That combined with CCX extensions allow them to do under 50 ms handoffs. 
Supposedly, just the CCX extensions make it possible for under 150 ms handoffs. 
I wonder if it is possible for Mikrotik to implement any of these protocols.

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/ccx/versions_and_features.shtml

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Butch Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2006 08:54 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bragging on Mikrotik
>
>On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
>
>>How long is a ping?  Isn't windows ping like 4 sec?  7 times 4 = 28
>>seconds. To me, (if my math is correct) 28 sec is frustrating, not
>>seamless.
>
>Perhaps "seamless" is not the proper word.  We did some testing
>today and a cop used his laptop at 6 locations throughout the city
>to surf the web and do license checks.  From his perspective, it was
>seamless.  From the perspective of the network...there were seams.
>Is that a more clear explanation?
>
>--
>Butch Evans
>Network Engineering and Security Consulting
>573-276-2879
>http://www.butchevans.com/
>Mikrotik Certified Consultant
>(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Bragging on Mikrotik

[John J. Thomas]

Something like this

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6590/products_white_paper09186a00800a.shtml

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:57 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bragging on Mikrotik
>
>It's too bad MT doesn't come up with a mobile roaming / routing 
>protocol(unless they do and I don't know of it). Where the end user 
>retains the same IP address even after it get routed between various 
>towers and is wireless medium independent(wifi, wimax, cdma). Does 
>anyone here have experience/ideas with that?
>
>Jon Langeler
>Michwave Tech.
>
>Butch Evans wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
>>
>>> How long is a ping?  Isn't windows ping like 4 sec?  7 times 4 = 28 
>>> seconds. To me, (if my math is correct) 28 sec is frustrating, not 
>>> seamless.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps "seamless" is not the proper word.  We did some testing today 
>> and a cop used his laptop at 6 locations throughout the city to surf 
>> the web and do license checks.  From his perspective, it was 
>> seamless.  From the perspective of the network...there were seams. Is 
>> that a more clear explanation?
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT: OpenSER and CCME

[John J. Thomas]

If youare trying to use OpenSER, you will need to upgrade the handsets for SIP, 
SCCP won't work. If you have access to Cisco support, you can download the 
information to convert the handsets to SIP.

John




>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Hendry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 05:44 PM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: [WISPA] OT: OpenSER and CCME
>
>Hi all,
>
>This is slightly un wireless related but I was wondering if anyone else is
>using OpenSER for there VoIP platform and if anyone has managed to get Cisco
>Call Manager Express to work nicely with it? Just spent the last 12 hours
>straight trying to get all the SCCP handsets that connect to CCME to then
>call through OpenSER and all have the same CLI but it don't want to work :(
> 
>
>-- 
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 12/09/2006
> 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

[John J. Thomas]

Yes, and, if for some reason they take too long on a job such that the 
"flat-rate" billing is less than Minimum wage, you get into hot water

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 05:46 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

[John J. Thomas]

Id never said they couldn't be paid by the hour. I used to work for a roofing 
company, and they were regularly questioned about they way they paid their 
employees. If you have someone work in your office at for 6 hours, and then 
they go and "flat-rate" a 3 hour job, that looks like overtime to me, but then 
I am in California, and the labor laws here are more stringent than in a lot of 
other places.

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Pete Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 06:10 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations

[John J. Thomas]

inline...

>-Original Message-
>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:22 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>Until, the IRS decides that they can not be considered a contractor, because 
>they do not do work for other people, and are not solely in control of how a 
>job gets done.
>To do it legal, its pretty important that installer's company becomes 
>Incorporated or LLC.  Once they do that, its hard to keep control of what they 
>do, and you loose benefits of Employing.
>Benefits of employing, does that exist ? :-)
>
>I guess the truth is, can you find installers willing to give up benefits of 
>being an employee, and still be available when you need them like an employee?

>>> If you pay them well and give them enough work so they don't starve

John

>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>  - Original Message -
>  From: Rick Smith
>  To: 'WISPA General List'
>  Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:27 PM
>  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>
>  the answer is hire a company to do installations for you.  if your employee 
> just happens to own that company, well, oh well…
>
>
>
>  It’s all invoices.   Pay them as normal, and you don’t need to worry about 
> taxes, etc.  Your employee (or sub’d company J…) does that on their own.
>
>
>
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>  Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 5:28 PM
>  To: WISPA General List
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>
>
>  Where the problems come in are, that paying someone peice rate does NOT 
> NEGATE the requirement to pay overtime for Employees.
>
>  Nor does it Negate the IRS's definition of what an EMployee is and a 
> contractor is.
>
>
>
>  You have to restrict employees to work less than 40 hours or prepair to pay 
> time and a half for your peice rate.  If an employee works 60 hours, and 
> completes three installs at in that week, at a peice rate of $100 each you 
> would pay the employee.
>
>
>
>  $300 / 60 hours = $5 per hour. Overtime (20 hours) would be paid on $100 of 
> the pay.  Addtional over time pay (half time) would be $50.
>
>  Total paycheck would be $350.
>
>
>
>  If it took them 60 hours to just get two installs done, they would be less 
> than the minimum wage.
>
>
>
>  So there are two requirements
>
>  1) You must have a minimum pay, calcuated on the total number of hours that 
> THEY record working.
>
>  2) Must figure out someones average hourly rate on a weekly basis. This 
> complicates the accounting duties, and forces the account to custom pay each 
> employee each month.
>
>
>
>  Two problems that can occur are...
>
>
>
>  What if you want to pay an employee well, because they are really doing a 
> good job, and then one week they decide to go really slow?  You end up paying 
> someone a huge amount of overtime unexpectedly!
>
>
>
>  What we learned was that a employee's record of stated hours worked was 
> accurate.  So paying peice rate does NOT NEGATE the need of the management to 
> record  and manage the hours worked by an employee.  We learned, that an 
> Employer is NOT responsible for their productivity the employer is.  So if 
> they go to the movies all day without you knowing it, and work late to get 
> the job done, you still owe them the overtime, regardless of what flat peice 
> rate you negotiated.
>
>
>
>  These are some of the reasons that we chose to put employees on Salary 
> instead of Piece rate.  We live in a sue happy county. We just plan on 
> everyone taking way to long for an install, and put very low expectations on 
> what they are expected to accomplish, and we save on management and 
> accounting salaries.  If they get done early, we have them do other things.  
> I won't talk about what happens if they don't get their work done, thats 
> handled on a case by case basis.  So we chose salary for ease.  IF they 
> consistently do well, they get a higher salary and stock options.  It creates 
> a team effort, not a what do I get mentality.
>
>
>
>  I don't know if that is the right decission or not, it really takes our guys 
> a long time to get things done. I often consider whether I should migrate 
> back to peice rate.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Tom DeReggi
>  RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>
>From: Pete Davis
>
>To: WISPA General List
>
>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 9:10 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced installations
>
>
>
>According to the DOL (department of Labor) an employee can be paid by the 
> hour or for piece work (by the job)
>
>from http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm
>
>The Act requires employers of covered employees who are not otherwise 
> exempt to pay these employees a minimum wage of not less than $5.15 an hour 
> as of September 1

Re: [WISPA] Low power Ethernet Switch

[John J. Thomas]

These guys aren't cheap...

http://www.korenix-usa.com/JetNet4500.htm

John


>-Original Message-
>From: David E. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 09:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low power Ethernet Switch
>
>D. Ryan Spott wrote:
>> Looking for a VERY low wattage 12 or 24  volt switch.
>> 
>> Does anyone have any recommendations?
>> 
>> I need it for a remote tower running 12 and 24 volt solar.
>
>No, but I'll see your question and raise you another question.
>
>Anyone have any recommendations on (if this even exists) small managed 
>or semi-managed switches? Basically, I just want to be able to graph 
>traffic by port, and mybe shut off a given port, but you usually 
>only find that in physically large (i.e. rackmount) switches. I want 
>something like that, but with only five or maybe eight ports, small 
>enough to stick in an outdoor enclosure.
>
>David Smith
>MVN.net
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Service in Colorado?

[John J. Thomas]

Anybody want to provide wireless in Colorado?


http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=110287


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] bare conduits

[John J. Thomas]

I have heard of people using something resembling a ping pong ball, pressure on 
one end and vacuum on the other to push a small string/ribbon through. Once 
that is done you just pull bigger string until you get the size you want.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 09:24 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: [WISPA] bare conduits
>
>Im looking at a project that requires connectivity between multiple
>buildings on the same campus.  There are 4" conduits connecting each
>facility.  The conduits are bare, Id like to run fiber in them, and
>there are no pull cords in them.  Some are several hundred yards long.
>Ive heard that you can blow a cable through a conduit.  Can anyone
>enlighten me on equipment/technique for this application?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Chris
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Need opinion

[John J. Thomas]

Carlos, the Cisco 1242's bridge, but need to be put in a NEMA box to be outdoor 
rated. You can get them for about $500 on the street. Now, before everyone 
jumps on, YES, they are more expensive than Mikrotik and some others, but they 
do bridge well.

JT


>-Original Message-
>From: Carlos A. Garcia G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 08:21 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need opinion
>
>Thank u very much at the list the opinions that you gaved me has help me
>a lot, as far as i could see it is that its better to work with 4 radio 
>bridges, not the las time i did that i use cisco 2.4 1310 bridge i have 
>to say that works very stable, but the solution for 5.8 its the 1400 as 
>far as i remember only one bridge has the cost of 4000 us, that much
>more expensive that i tought so i have checked another products recently
>i checked proxim QuickBridge.11 5054-R, who has used the proxim
>equipments, any one with experience can tell me about it?
>
>Chad Halsted escribió:
>> StarOS has the ability to run a VDS tunnel from any two StarOS V3
>> devices.  That will enable you to run a 128 or 256 bit AES encrypted
>> tunnel.  If memory serves me correctly, Lonnie is able to get 15mbps
>> or more out of that type of setup?
>>
>> If you're worried about interference, try x2 or x4 cloaking on the
>> 5GHz bands.
>>
>> I'm getting ready to install a dedicated T1 replacement, the customer
>> was worried about security.  The ability to encrypt with AES won them
>> over.
>>
>> I should have said 3 WAR boards, not RADIOS, sorry about the
>> confusion.  The amount of radios you use is up to you, but you would
>> want atleast 4 radio cards for what you're trying to do.
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/06, Carlos A. Garcia G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ok, following your recomendations in order to set up the link without
>>> using more than 3 radios what you recommend its to use th WAR from
>>> Staros i have a wireless repeaters using cisco so the extra radios for
>>> customers are not necesary (sorry my english) if i use this
>>>
>>> NOC war with one antenna and radio at 5.8GHz to connect with the middle
>>> POP war dual 2 radios 2 antennas at 5.8GHz and finally the customer
>>> POP war
>>> and what about security the guy ask me to doit secure meaning not easy
>>> for the folks. (he knows total security its an utopia a Guajiro dream!!)
>>>
>>> Lonnie Nunweiler escribió:
>>> > My recommendation is to have a dual WAR board at the main POP.  Use a
>>> > 5 GHz antenna and radio to connect tot the middle repeater and have a
>>> > 2.4 GHz with an omni at the main just to be able to connect any local
>>> > customers.  The biggest investment is the CPU board and time to
>>> > install, and an extra radio and 15 dB omni is cheap.  Even a couple of
>>> > subscribers will make it pay.
>>> >
>>> > At the middle repeater I would use a dual WAR with 5 GHz radios to
>>> > point to main and the remote end.  If you want some local service at
>>> > that repeater then use a 4 port WAR and throw a 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz
>>> > card in it or both 2.4 GHz or 900 MHz.  Your choice.
>>> >
>>> > The remote end is a copy of the main end with a dual WAR and 5 GHz
>>> > input and a 2.4 GHz to an omni for local use.
>>> >
>>> > This arrangement will get you 20 to 30 mbps of sustained throughput as
>>> > long as the middle repeater is no farther than 30 miles from either
>>> > end.  You'll also have a couple of revenue generating AP units at each
>>> > end and potentially the middle.
>>> >
>>> > Lonnie
>>> >
>>> > On 12/12/06, Carlos A. Garcia G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> I have just recived an answer from chad saying that starOS its a good
>>> >> choice, thanks chad ill check it, for your question yes i w'd like to
>>> >> play, i have never deployed my routers, but i really would like
>>> to, so
>>> >> im like a newbie compared to the people in this list but im hungry to
>>> >> learn the how to, thanks to everybody, this is an amazing list.
>>> >>
>>> >> Mario Pommier escribió:
>>> >> > Carlos,
>>> >> >that's your first item, your line of thinking seems accurate:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Cisco, Proxim, Trango, Alvarion, StarOS, Mikrotik -- what
>>> equipment
>>> >> > will you choose and what is the advantage/disadvantage of each.
>>> >> >Maybe your first perspective is: do you want to go with a
>>> >> > "finished, packaged" product, or do you want to be able to "play
>>> more
>>> >> > with the tools and toys" out there?
>>> >> >The type of computer person you are may be a good guide: do you
>>> >> > deploy your own Unix/Linux based routers or do you buy Cisco
>>> finished
>>> >> > products?
>>> >> >Hope that helps some.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mario
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Carlos A. Garcia G wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Thank u very much, but the question it is, i do not know many
>>> >> >> equipments, i have only work with cisco aironet, the last time 
>>> i do
>>> >> >> something similar and get the cisco 1300 s

Re: [WISPA] Agreement Announced on San Francisco Wireless Network

[John J. Thomas]

What is really sad about this is that it probably won't work very well. A 
couple of weeks ago I was over on California street installing a wireless LAN. 
During our testing, we were able to pick up over 200 APs, from the 26th floor 
with only the built in wireless card in the laptop. We know that a couple of 
them were in the biulding, but most were not. Over 50 % of those APs were 
showing a signal of -80dB or better.

JT


>-Original Message-
>From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, January 8, 2007 03:45 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Agreement Announced on San Francisco Wireless Network
>
>Agreement Announced on San Francisco Wireless Network
>January 5, 2007 News Release
>"Today, EarthLink and the City of San Francisco reached agreement on the
>terms of the contract to build a citywide wireless network," said Donald
>Berryman, executive vice president of EarthLink.
>
>"This agreement catapults San Francisco into a leadership position in
>wireless technology: the network ensures universal, affordable wireless 
>broadband access for all San Franciscans, especially low-income and
>disadvantaged residents; and through the mayor's digital divide program,
>children and students will have the digital tools to ensure that they
>have access to everything that the Internet has to offer the growing
>minds of the city's promising future.
>
>"Other advantages of having a citywide wireless network include
>improving the efficiency of the city's government; stimulating private
>investment into developing tools and applications to take advantage of
>wireless technology, and providing more consumer choice and competition 
>for broadband services than what exists today in the marketplace.
>
>"We look forward to working with the Board of Supervisors to gain
>approval of the agreement so we can begin building out the network in 2007."
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was: Advanced Bandwidth Management

[John J. Thomas]

But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes

If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig, then he 
has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for unlimited access, 
he has no reason to slow down.

Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like $99 per 
month, how can you compete with that?

John 

>-Original Message-
>From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:59 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings,By Speed or All You Can Eat? 
>Was:   Advanced Bandwidth Management
>
>No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast 
>this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it...
>The model of "the customer will use what they are going to use and then 
>get off" is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can 
>download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time? 
>Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :(
>
>Travis
>Microserv
>
>RickG wrote:
>> Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...
>>
>> I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
>> speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
>> What if you played the "cable game" and just sell  all you can eat?
>> Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
>> Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
>> your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
>> up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> RickG
>>
>> On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco "games" with their "up
>>> to 3meg" and "up to 7meg" connections for $34.95 and just start selling
>>> what they get.
>>>
>>> We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
>>> guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
>>> did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
>>> more. No games, no "burstable" speeds, etc.
>>>
>>> Make your customers pay for what they need and use.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>> > We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.
>>> >
>>> > We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
>>> > pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.
>>> >
>>> > A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
>>> > 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
>>> > 1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
>>> > possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
>>> > customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
>>> > him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
>>> > Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
>>> > words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone..
>>> >
>>> > After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
>>> > a 3 month lead time, he called me back...
>>> >
>>> > He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
>>> > and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
>>> > damn good deal..
>>> >
>>> > The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
>>> > expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
>>> > cites  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.
>>> >
>>> > The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
>>> > customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
>>> > patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
>>> > providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer
>>> >
>>> > Just my $.02
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > J. Vogel wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the 
>>> world,
>>> >> not necessarily in the limited
>>> >> world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
>>> >> pay for such a pipe. In many
>>> >> areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
>>> >> Customers do not want to pay
>>> >> close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the 
>>> internet,
>>> >> yet the customer would like to
>>> >> access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
>>> >> whenever they can. In such a case
>>> >> it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all 
>>> unethical to
>>> >> sell customers shared bandwidth.
>>> >>
>>> >> In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
>>> >> question, and deserves an answer
>>> >> other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
>>> >> should not be. The world is a big
>>> >> place. It is good to get out and see parts of it

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing

[John J. Thomas]

Sam, Walmart has made most of its money by screwing others.

Truck driver makes delivery to Walmart ad unload pallets. Goes to have 
receiving sign for them. Receiving refuses to sign, and says that *after* the 
truck driver *unloads* the items off the pallets, then he will sign. This is 
NOT the truck drivers responsibility.

Walmart decides that a Gallon jar of pickles shoud cost $3.97-*regardless* of 
whether the company can make 10 cents on that. Company sells $3.97 jar of 
pickles and goes bankrupt after that.

Walmart is costing the State of California Millions of dollars each year just 
by telling its employees " we won't give you that benefit, but if you go apply 
for State assistance, they will."

A little bit of research on the Internet will show you to what degree they have 
gone to to screw others. If that is the way you want to do business, then so be 
it. Me, my family and anyone else I have influence over won't do business with 
you-period.

You have to structure your pricing in a way that you can successfully market. I 
have a problem with those people that say "512k unlimited $39.99 per month". 
Then, when you download a single movie, they cut your service. That is 
Dishonesty-period. If you tell your clients, 4 Gig for $39.99, then there is no 
issue. I'm sure MANY are going to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, and they 
certainly have a right to. At some point, this will have to be the way it 
works-you can't sell unlimited pipes for $39.99 per month, when you have to pay 
$100 or more per month-the economics are not there.

I applaud Marlon for what he is doing, and I hope that he will review his 
pricing regularly. If he finds that he can drop the rates a bit, or adjust the 
limits upward, I'm sure his clients will appreciate it. They should also 
appreciate that fact that he isn't trying to squeeze every last dime from them.

John Thomas



>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:49 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
>
>There actually are some of us out here that don't have this luxury in
>our markets.  My total market is approximately 3000 people (not
>households) and I have to go 45 miles in any direction to find another
>town with more than 80 people in it.
>
>I'm not saying this in a 'woe is me' tone, just stating a fact.  Some of
>us operate in the well under 10,000 people areas where 'finding a higher
>ARPU customer' is not really a viable option.  We have to be all things 
>in order to have enough customers to pay the bills.  The top 10% of my
>market would get me less than 100 customers and they would have an
>average income of less than $100K.
>
>As a slightly off-topic aside:  (those that don't want to listen to my
>ramblings can safely stop here :)
>
>I do find the Walmart reference interesting.  Since I have started this 
>business I have tried to read as much as I can in terms of business,
>marketing  and sales books.  Having come from a purely tech background
>it astounds me how clueless I really was until I started a business.
>
>One of the things that I have struggled with is the price point vs
>service aspect of the business.  Obviously being the cheapest option has
>it's sales advantages, especially in the residential best effort
>internet business.  But as we all know, being the cheapest makes it a
>bit harder to pay the bills.
>
>When I read business and marketing books they all espouse the higher end
>customer is the better customer view.  I understand this view, you have 
>a valued customer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for quality
>service.  You look at brands like Lexus and Bose and think, these are
>the people I need to be like.  These companies have made millionaires.
>
>But what I find interesting is that companies like Walmart and McDonalds
>who do live in the quantity, not quality world have made billionaires.  
>The trick seems to be, if you can somehow manages to be the cheapest and
>do it right you can make a boat load of money and it doesn't have to be 
>at the expense of the customer.
>
>  Sam Tetherow
>  Sandhills Wireless
>
>Peter R. wrote:
>> John J. Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> But, the model will work if you bill by the bytes
>>>
>>> If Joe is paying $40 per month for 6 Gig and gets throttled at 6 Gig,
>>> then he has a disincentive for keeping going. If he is paying $40 for
>>> unlimited access, he has no reason to slow down.
>>>
>>> Charter cable is doing 10 meg down/1 meg up in some markets for like 
>>> $99 per month, how can you compete with that?
>>>
>>> John
>>

Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi

[John J. Thomas]

True, to be fair, there are Munis doing private Wireless, public wireless and 
both. Most Munis see the benefit of doing it private, although some are still 
politically tempted to do the public or public-private mix to make them some 
campaign points. When we work with cities and they say they want to do public, 
we tell them it is a bad idea and give them reasons why.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 05:52 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
>
>Marlon,
>
>You cannot lump all municipal networks together which you do on a
>regular basis. According to a recent study
>only about 50% of muni networks provide access to the public. In the
>same report it mentions that there are
>less and less municipalities taking on this responsibility and
>outsourcing it to companies that do this work day in and day out.
>
>So yes this article is accurate but not for the reasons you may think.Of
>course I could be wrong about what you are thinking. ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Dawn DiPietro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dawn DiPietro wrote:
>
>> Marlon,
>>
>> You want to know what else is funny?
>> How you just pick and choose what you want to hear.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dawn
>>
>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>>
>>> MessageFunny how so few press outlets will ever talk about anything
>>> at all negative about muni networks.  This is clearly biased, but
>>> it's still a breath of fresh air to me!
>>> marlon
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -  From: Cameron  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>  Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM
>>>  Subject: [WISP] New report on Muni Wifi
>>>
>>>
>>>  FYI
>>>
>>>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing

[John J. Thomas]

 Mark, how would you like to be the employee at an American television tube 
manufacturer and then lose your job and watch the plant close. The manufacturer 
found that foreign companies were dumping their product on the American market 
so they filed suit. When push came to shove, Walmart filed against them, siding 
with the foreign market in what was clearly an ILLEGAL practice. Time ran out 
and the company had to close its doors. Business people love to look at the 
Walmart model in envy, but I doubt those same people would ever work for the 
company. I have no problem with businesses that are legal, ethical and moral, 
and Walmart has been proven to be lacking in all 3 areas.

John Thomas



>-Original Message-
>From: wispa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 03:39 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
>
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:27:22 -0800, George Rogato wrote
>> Blake Bowers wrote:
>
>You know, the only real difference between WalMart and most other retailers,
>is that what the manufacturer agrees to do, WalMart holds them to.
>Rubbermaid, Vlasic Pickles, Bicycle makers, the list goes on and on.  All of
>them agreed to do X, Y, and Z and each found out they had agreed to do things
>they didn't know how to do, or could not do.
>
>Many companies agreed to sell to WalMart at less than their cost, and went
>broke trying to keep up with demand.   WalMart is a huge market.  They sell
>in 3 months what the next largest retailer (the second largest retailer, that
>is) in the world sells in a year.
>
>Walmart insists that prices must FALL, not rise, and that they must be
>competitive.   Walmart's profit on some items is on the order of 1 to 5%, and
>those are not large items, either.  They DO their part in passing on revenues
>to manufacturers.  Nobody exists on slimmer margins than WalMart does.
>
>There's a trail of dead or damaged companies in WalMart's wake, but it wasn't
>Walmart that did it to them.  It was their own greed or incompetence, when
>they were offered a chance at the largest retailer's shelf space in the 
>world, and took it in terms they could NOT sustain.
>
>There's a lesson for all of us in that, in that we really SHOULD know our
>capabilities and have a plan to deal with both growth and competition.  Can
>we handle success?  Can we keep our word, do we know our own selves well
>enough to make our plans and stick to them with discipline?
>
>Will we promise what we can't deliver, if it appears to promise us growth?
>
>Every company that sells products to WalMart knows exactly what they're 
>expected to do when they start out.  Many think they can get concessions, or
>have unrealistic expectations.
>
>I spent quite a bit of time reading about this...  And I resolved at that
>moment, no matter what the future, I resolve to know what I'm doing, where
>I'm going, and what I and my company can and cannot do.
>
>I sort of turned over a new leaf after reading and digesting.  It was a good
>way to start 2007.  Inspired by WalMart, no less.  Hate them if you want, but
>I don't and can't.  They're a breath of fresh air in a world of fudging,
>loose focus and blind ambition.   They have an absolute resolute goal they
>have never wavered on, and that has always been the customer.  WE need that
>kind of discipline and focus, too, as companies and individuals.  NEver 
>forget what we're here for.
>
>
>
>> >
>> > The pickles...  The famous pickles.  Got to love it.  You tie the
>> > pickles with the
>> > bankruptcy, when every industry analyst, all the business mags, Vlasic
>> > themselves,
>> > all agree, Walmart or the pickle deal was not a critical factor in their
>> > bankruptcy.
>>
>> Not sure about pickles, but I have heard the "Rubbermaid" story.
>> Walmart, dropped Rubbermaid off at the door of bakruptcy. Popular
>> story about the way they do business.
>>
>> All Walmart business practices do is give everyone an example of
>> extreme agressiveness of those sharks out there.
>>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>Mark Koskenmaki  <> Neofast, Inc
>Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
>541-969-8200
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing

[John J. Thomas]

 I read an article once about this. What happens when Walmart can't drop prices 
any lower? Who foots the bill when Walmart employees get sick and go to the 
Emergency room? 

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Peter R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 03:46 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
>
>Blake Bowers wrote:
>
>> Actually, Walmart has made most of its money by providing the CONSUMER 
>> with
>> what the CONSUMER wants.
>>
>> Walmart fills only what the consumer wants.   That is how they make 
>> money,
>> by meeting those consumer needs/desires.  When a customer wants
>> an apple for ten cents, you don't fulfill those needs by offering an 
>> orange for
>> twenty cents!
>
>Actually, are they supplying what a consumer wants?
>Or simply offering low prices?
>Don't confuse the 2.
>
>Many people want cheaper - or the perception of cheaper.
>When you are selling commodities, it usually does come down to price.
>
>Yet Target sells many of the same items and has a much higher check out 
>average per customer.
>Customer service, neatness, variety, and plain ole English are all 
>things missing from Walmart, IMO.
>
>At what point does that model - of dropping prices - stop working?
>(I have noticed that Walmart is often not the cheapest.)
>And this model only works when you can capture market share.
>
>- Peter
>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing

[John J. Thomas]

I am going to be specific here

What mechanism do you have in place to 'protect' your network from the person 
that downloads 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you sold me a connection that 
was 256k for $39.99 I would feel that I have a right to use it as much as I 
want.

I am not saying bit cap, I am saying tiered pricing. I am sure that most here 
can break their clients into 3 groups;

1. the people that rarely use their Internet, possibly 300-500 megabytes per 
month.

2. The average user that probably uses 2-5 Gigabytes per month.

3. The bandwidth hog that is using 20 Gigs plus per month and complains when 
their speed teest falls for 5 k bits per second.

My argument is that ISPs need to have a mechanism to make the people in the 
last group either pay their fair share, or go somewhere else.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:46 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
>
>I'm sure much of this will already have been covered (been out for a
>couple of days).  But since it was addressed to me
>
>Don't know the details of the truck driver story, but if it wasn't his
>responsibility all he needs to do is leave the truck blocking the
>loading dock and walk into the store and ask the manager to call his
>boss and they can get it sorted from there.
>
>As for the pickles, if Walmart decides all they want to pay for a gallon
>of pickles is 3.97 that is their right.  No one is forcing anyone to
>sell at 3.97.
>
>The legislature of CA is costing CA millions of dollars each year, not
>Walmart.  If the legislature wants to pick up the tab for workers who
>aren't insured by their employer that is their own fault.  Are you going
>to complain about every other business in CA that doesn't insure their
>employees?
>
>A little bit of research on the internet will also fill me in about
>black helicopters and tinfoil hats...
>
>The trick is conveying to your customer what your plan is in terms that 
>they understand.  I'm in a primarily residential market and compete with
>DSL.  The selling point of my service, is just that service.  I still
>have to compete with Qwest pricing but I only have to be close on cost
>to speed and sell them on the service.  It isn't that hard to sell
>service vs the phone company.
>
>But I have to disagree with everyone that is on the bitcap bandwagon.  I
>understand fully the issues that come with p2p and streaming video but
>that is what is driving the internet today.
>
>I take pride in providing the internet to my customers and I want to
>provide the type of internet service I would expect from my connection. 
>
>The internet is no longer about web pages and email it is about
>podcasts, video streams and downloaded movies and if we aren't ready to 
>provide that type of service they we are just relagating ourselves to
>being the new dialup with 128K plans and draconian bandwidth policies.
>
>I don't see bit metering (paying by the bit not on a transfer rate) as
>being a billing model for the future because every other communication
>model is trending away from it and I doubt the customer will put up with
>it given a choice.  Phone service is abandoning the per minute pricing
>for pricing plans which are tending toward unlimited minutes (mobile to 
>mobile, home network, after hours).
>
>Also as more and more services migrate to the internet people are not
>going to want to worry about their bit caps.  The idea of having to look
>at the file size of a netflix movie download and they try to figure out 
>how much it is going to cost me to download (above the netflix cost)
>reminds me all to much of the old dailup days when we were paying by the
>minute.
>
>As a businessman you should be trying to squeeze every last dime out of 
>your customers.  The trick is to provide the service that will make them
>want to pay every last dime of it.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>> Sam, Walmart has made most of its money by screwing others.
>>
>> Truck driver makes delivery to Walmart ad unload pallets. Goes to have 
>> receiving sign for them. Receiving refuses to sign, and says that *after* 
>> the truck driver *unloads* the items off the pallets, then he will sign. 
>> This is NOT the truck drivers responsibility.
>>
>> Walmart decides that a Gallon jar of pickles shoud cost $3.97-*regardless* 
>> of whether the company can make 10 cents on that. Company sells $3.97 jar of 
>> pickles and goes bankrupt after that.
>>
>> Walmart is costing the State of California Millions of dollars each year 
>>

Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces

[John J. Thomas]

inline...


>-Original Message-
>From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 10:52 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV white spaces
>
>Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:
>
>1. The FCC is not a baby sitter.
>2. Mature operators (and industries as a whole) follow the rules as a
>matter of course and expected cost of business.
>3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially
>benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should
>thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
>4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain
>about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc.
>
>As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly
>been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are
>now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its
>approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one
>rule: "Don't exceed the power limitations." Everything else has become
>fair game.
>
>Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not
>actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
>
>- many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some
>commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal,
>right?...)

>> Many disagree with my view on things, but this is clearly wrong. 4.9 GHz is 
>> a licensed band for PUBLIC SAFETY ONLY. If know somebody that is using it 
>> illegally, they are a criminal. If you don't do something about it, you are 
>> an accessory to the crime and just as guilty.


>- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated
>(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings)
>- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
>distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only
>hurts other vendors anyway...)
>- "build your own base station" type Google ads are rampant
>
>Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such
>attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey,
>OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).
>
>We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
>ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm
>stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance,
>lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for
>relativism and "creative interpretation" of the rules. You should also
>not cave to the hard luck excuses that "I'm a small guy and can't afford
>to follow the rules." (Your response to such should be to point to
>funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum
>cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC
>rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's
>free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal
>operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the
>industry at large.
>
>And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters
>anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor
>with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal
>operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum
>for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Patrick Leary
>AVP WISP Markets
>Alvarion, Inc.
>o: 650.314.2628
>c: 760.580.0080
>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
>
>All,
>
>Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look
>
>bad.
>Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.
>
>Regards,
>Dawn DiPietro
>
>
>Patrick Leary wrote:
>
>>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
>>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
>>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
>>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines."
>>
>>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
>>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now where
>>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
>>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
>>
>>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
>>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
>>
>>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
>>discouraging the slippery slope.
>>
>>Patrick Leary
>>AVP WISP Markets
>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>o: 650.314.2628
>>c: 760.580.0080
>>Vonage: 650.6

Re: [WISPA] Routers

[John J. Thomas]

cdw.com carries the Cisco 851W for $379. 

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 08:27 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers
>
>Checkpoint has one for under $400 too.  I forgot about that one.  Dual wan 
>with wireless.  Kinda cool.
>
>I've not tried one yet, but did see them at ISPCon.
>
>laters,
>marlon
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers
>
>
>>I too have that idea in action, but the port forwarding options are non 
>>existant... There has to be something out there that works...
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routers
>>
>>
>>> Ross Cornett wrote:
 Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line 
 of router out there for home and small business.  We have used linksys 
 and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well. 
 Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best?  I 
 am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer their 
 lack of quality.  Your feedback is very welcome.


 Ross Cornett
 VP 217 342 6201 ex 7
 HofNet Communications, Inc.
 www.HofNet-Communications.com

 HofNet-Communications.com
>>>
>>> One more reason I use a cpe with built in router.
>>>
>>> I know your pain.
>>>
>>> George
>>> -- 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations

[John J. Thomas]

The Telcos all over are deploying 400 mW units-anything that says 2WIRE is 400 
mW.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 09:12 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>
>Precisely why X2 cloaking is so important.  It doubles the number of
>channels and X4 gives 11 of them back to us.  X4 gives about 7 mbps
>with non compressible data and over 12 mbps with compressible data.
>Better than a standard B model with perfect conditions.
>
>The other thing to keep in mind is that all of those channel 6 units
>attached to ADSL lines are typically unused or lightly used.  They
>connect with an ADSL line and thus cannot even begin to consume the
>total air time.
>
>The Telco here is distributing units with 400 mW radaios whether the
>client even wants wireless in their home.  It does not even phase a
>cloaked connection so we are OK with it.
>
>Lonnie
>
>On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There USED to be three non overlapping channels.  Now channel 6 overlaps
>> with every third house in many markets :-).
>> Marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>>
>>
>> > Standard Wifi has 3 channels that do not overlap.  X4 cloaking has 6
>> > channels that do not overlap and X4 cloaking has 11 channels that do
>> > not overlap.
>> >
>> > We use 4 WLM-54G radios in a WAR4 and have seen no great issues unless
>> > two active radios are on the same channel.  I am not sure about 6 but
>> > I know for sure that 4 works fine.  Incidentally the SR9 has almost NO
>> > leakage.  Even with the cards side by side they will not link up.  In
>> > order to get anything from them you need a pigtail and an antenna.
>> >
>> > Lonnie
>> >
>> > On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I'd recommend against that idea Matt.  ALL devices leak some energy.  And
>> >> the amount of interference you'll create for yourself at inches vs. feet
>> >> is
>> >> amazing.  If you can keep things 3 feet apart there is much less energy,
>> >> small small fractions in fact.
>> >>
>> >> Alvarion with their FHSS gear can get away with such things because they
>> >> can
>> >> always stay enough hopping channels away from near by radios.  FHSS has
>> >> 72
>> >> (or is it only 70?) channels to choose from.  WiFi has basically 2 these
>> >> days.
>> >>
>> >> Where this one gets hard to explain is that people build such critters,
>> >> test
>> >> them in the lap and then say that they work.  Life will change
>> >> dramatically
>> >> however, once installed into a working system AND with the addition of
>> >> real
>> >> customers with real traffic.
>> >>
>> >> laters,
>> >> marlon
>> >>
>> >> - Original Message -
>> >> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:24 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I thought you were already working with Deliberant on just such an
>> >> >animal.
>> >> >Where are you guys with that? I know they have a dual radio unit capable
>> >> >of
>> >> >5 GHz and 2.4 GHz in the same box.
>> >> > Scriv
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Matt Liotta wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> We don't do much Wi-Fi, so I figured I would ask the list. If I wanted
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> deploy a number of Wi-Fi radios at the same location what kind of
>> >> >> setups
>> >> >> are available? I am looking for something where I can deploy one
>> >> >> physical
>> >> >> box that has multiple radios as opposed to a single box per radio.
>> >> >> Ideally, it would be something modular where I can have a variable
>> >> >> number
>> >> >> of radio interfaces by simply adding cards.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does anything like that exist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Matt
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> >> >
>> >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> >> >
>> >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> >>
>> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> >>
>> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lonnie Nunweiler
>> > Valemount Networks Corporation
>> > http://www.star-os.com/
>> > --
>> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> >
>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> >
>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Lonnie Nunweiler

Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules ?????

[John J. Thomas]

Cisco AP 1242 Radios have 5.4 GHz as an option in the current flash.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 04:08 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules ?
>
>Travis,
>Are saying you are using 5.4 GHz radios in the US?
>Scriv
>
>
>Travis Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You make good points... however, the better question is how much money 
>> did Z-Tel take out of the business during this time? I would bet the 
>> owners and investors made BIG money during this time... so, so what if 
>> they are out of business now? If they made millions during that time, 
>> then it worked out for them.
>>
>> Same for DSL. I know there are companies that are going or gone now, 
>> but that made millions in profits during the past 5 years.
>>
>> Yes, DoD may have a little more push with the FCC, but, who's to say 
>> someone can't buy 5.4ghz right now today and put it up? Any user with 
>> internet access could order and install a 5.4ghz AP tomorrow for 
>> less than $300...
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>> Many of you probably don't follow the FCC much, so let me tell you 
>>> about the stroke of a pen:
>>>
>>> UNE-P which was the magic bullet for CLECs. No facilities needed. 
>>> Rock bottom pricing on voice lines. Market and sell. Z-Tel and a few 
>>> others had over 500k lines. Unfortunately, they didn't listen when 
>>> they were told it would be a stop gap to facilities. In other words, 
>>> sell UNE-P regionally and convert to facilities. No one listened. 
>>> Bang! UNE-P ruled no more. One year to move to facilities. Z-Tel just 
>>> filed BK, following many others that area shadow of their UNE-P selves.
>>>
>>> Another example: DSL. One day it is tariffed. Bang! No tariff. Go 
>>> nego with the ILEC.
>>>
>>> So please heed the warning about 5.4. It won't take much prodding 
>>> from DoD to wipe oout your business model.
>>>
>>> This is NOT a threat, folks.  This is how telecom regulations works 
>>> in the US.
>>>
>>> So skip the forms - 445 and 477. Keep using the unlincesed gear. Next 
>>> year you can all be pirates. That's okay, because you can celebrate 
>>> *Gasparilla* Pirate Fest in Tampa after that.
>>>
>>> Plus you say all this stuff on a PUBLIC, archived email list. DUH!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick Leary wrote:
>>>
 "Sticker conscious?" So this is what we've become as an industry?
 Following the very clear laws, which were once again just reiterated to
 us after another in a long chain of WISP visits, or not has now been
 reduced to simply being "sticker conscious" or "not sticker conscious"?
 Why not go further and call yourself "Illegal and proud" or just "I
 don't give a "? Let's not have any more "gee, I can't afford to be
 legal!" That's not an argument that is credible today, with the range
 from legal cheap to premium CPE running from about $170 to sub-$300 --
 that's cheap.
 My God, 5.4 is going to be a massive mess. OET will have to install a
 special phone line just to handle the incoming DoD complaint calls.

 Patrick Leary
 AVP WISP Markets
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations

[John J. Thomas]

I have one in front of me, the FCC ID is PGR2W2700RD.

>From the 2Wire website

Eliminate Coldspots with HyperG Technology
2Wire?s HyperG? high-powered wireless technology virtually eliminates wireless 
?coldspots? in the home. HomePortal residential gateways provide up to seven 
times the true power of traditional access points and increase wireless 
bandwidth by using high power 400mW transmitters*. Most wireless access points 
provide less than 100mW

*configurable power setting to comply with country specific power requirements

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 01:05 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>
>Hm..
>
>My understanding is that 400mw radios are generally not FCC
>compliant.If that is the case, then there are a lot of telcos that
>have been selling non-compliant equipment in the form of those DSL
>modems that they sell to their customers.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Matt Larsen
>vistabeam.com
>
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>> The Telcos all over are deploying 400 mW units-anything that says 2WIRE is 
>> 400 mW.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 09:12 PM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>>>
>>> Precisely why X2 cloaking is so important.  It doubles the number of
>>> channels and X4 gives 11 of them back to us.  X4 gives about 7 mbps
>>> with non compressible data and over 12 mbps with compressible data.
>>> Better than a standard B model with perfect conditions.
>>>
>>> The other thing to keep in mind is that all of those channel 6 units
>>> attached to ADSL lines are typically unused or lightly used.  They
>>> connect with an ADSL line and thus cannot even begin to consume the
>>> total air time.
>>>
>>> The Telco here is distributing units with 400 mW radaios whether the
>>> client even wants wireless in their home.  It does not even phase a
>>> cloaked connection so we are OK with it.
>>>
>>> Lonnie
>>>
>>> On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There USED to be three non overlapping channels.  Now channel 6 overlaps
>>>> with every third house in many markets :-).
>>>> Marlon
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:10 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Standard Wifi has 3 channels that do not overlap.  X4 cloaking has 6
>>>>> channels that do not overlap and X4 cloaking has 11 channels that do
>>>>> not overlap.
>>>>>
>>>>> We use 4 WLM-54G radios in a WAR4 and have seen no great issues unless
>>>>> two active radios are on the same channel.  I am not sure about 6 but
>>>>> I know for sure that 4 works fine.  Incidentally the SR9 has almost NO
>>>>> leakage.  Even with the cards side by side they will not link up.  In
>>>>> order to get anything from them you need a pigtail and an antenna.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lonnie
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd recommend against that idea Matt.  ALL devices leak some energy.  And
>>>>>> the amount of interference you'll create for yourself at inches vs. feet
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> amazing.  If you can keep things 3 feet apart there is much less energy,
>>>>>> small small fractions in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alvarion with their FHSS gear can get away with such things because they
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> always stay enough hopping channels away from near by radios.  FHSS has
>>>>>> 72
>>>>>> (or is it only 70?) channels to choose from.  WiFi has basically 2 these
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where this one gets hard to explain is that people build such critters,
>>>>>> test
>>>>>> them in the lap and then say that they work.  Life

Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations

[John J. Thomas]

Nope, SBC/ATT uses them in a big way.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 09:54 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
>
>John, you must be in Qwest territory.
>We see the 2 wire essid's all over the place, they're replacing the
>older actiontec essid's.
>
>George
>
>
>John J. Thomas wrote:
>> I have one in front of me, the FCC ID is PGR2W2700RD.
>>
>>>From the 2Wire website
>>
>> Eliminate Coldspots with HyperG Technology
>> 2Wire?s HyperG? high-powered wireless technology virtually eliminates 
>> wireless ?coldspots? in the home. HomePortal residential gateways provide up 
>> to seven times the true power of traditional access points and increase 
>> wireless bandwidth by using high power 400mW transmitters*. Most wireless 
>> access points provide less than 100mW
>>
>> *configurable power setting to comply with country specific power 
>> requirements
>>
>> John
>>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Some opinions

[John J. Thomas]

Carlos, if you put Cisco AP1242's in Nema boxes, you can alternate 2.4 and 5.8 
GHz, thus using only 5 radios.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Carlos A. Garcia G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 11:40 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] Some opinions
>
>Hi i have 2 offices that i have to connect to do this i nedd to use the 
>3 points between them
>
>Office1--> P1-->P2-->P3-->Office2
>
>do any of you know what equipments can connect without using too many 
>products for example to do that with cisco 1300 wireless
>bridges i need to use 8 radios and i want to use 5
>
>Office--> <-P1-><-P2-><-P3-> <--Office2
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Some opinions

[John J. Thomas]

1400's are way too expensive to even consider for this.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Carlos A. Garcia G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 05:23 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some opinions
>
>do u think that this can be done with cisco 1400 wireless bridge someone 
>has used this one?
>Butch Evans escribió:
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Carlos A. Garcia G wrote:
>>
>>> jejeje only need 64k link so the bandwidth will not be the problem
>>
>> In that case, I'd just use a simple WDS setup.  It's the 
>> easiest/cheapest thing to do.  Just be sure that the APs are secured 
>> (to prevent unauthorized access to the network from outside).
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

[John J. Thomas]

inline...

>-Original Message-
>From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 04:22 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>
>The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the 
>original configuration.  Changing the quantity and/or type of battery 
>risks damaging either the charger or the batteries.

This is partly true. Some of the larger APC UPSes can have additional batteries 
added on, but there are limits to the number of additional battery packs you 
can add.

>
>Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes 
>the runtime.
>
>paul hendry wrote:
>> Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an 
>> old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is 
>> they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they 
>> are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those 
>> sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 
>> connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each.
>>
>> Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries 
>> instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really 
>> want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> P.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
>> Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>>
>> I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100
>> batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I 
>> have
>> out in the field (80w).  It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and 
>> a
>> 19" TV on the QVC to load it up properly.  Now instead of 1 hour I get 
>> 13
>> hours.  Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this.  My 
>> goal
>> is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a 
>> sensible
>> price.
>>
>> One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to 
>> simply
>> take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of 
>> the
>> generator.  I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go.
>> It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 
>> 1000w
>> generators and putting large custom tanks on them.  That is if your UPS 
>> is
>> not on the top of a water tower or something. ;)
>>
>> Mark Nash
>> Network Engineer
>> UnwiredOnline.Net
>> 350 Holly Street
>> Junction City, OR 97448
>> http://www.uwol.net
>> 541-998-
>> 541-998-5599 fax
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>>
>>
>>   
>>> I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread.
>>> Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread
>>>
>>> Connectors:
>>>
>>> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=263-110
>>>
>>> Batteries:
>>>
>>> http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
>>>
>>> 
 Can we get some links to these batteries that work well?
 Gino,
 Got a link to the DC block connectors you were talking about?

 Brian


 Travis Johnson wrote:

   
> Hi,
>
> We run two 4 gauge power wires out the front of the case, connect 
> 
>> the
>>   
> positive to a 60A fuse, and then to the batteries.
>
> We are using AGM type (same thing used in UPS systems) big 
> 
>> batteries
>>   
> (a little bigger than a car battery, but each battery is 110 
> 
>> pounds).
>>   
> We wire them in series (to get 24VDC).
>
> This setup has only been installed for 12-18 months at various
> locations, so I don't have an estimate on battery life.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
>
> 
>> You got any pics of this or similar Travisanyone?
>>
>> Travis,
>> What APC do you use and what batteries are added?  What do you 
>>   
>> draw
>>   
>> and what is th run time?  Do you know how many times the one with
>> the most cycles has been drawn down?  How long do the batteries 
>>   
>> last?
>>   
>> Brian
>>
>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> You can't use just 1 battery. The APC units want to see 24vdc, so
>>> you need two batteries running in series.
>>>
>>> It works perfectly, as I have 20+ remote locations running off 
>>> 
>> two
>>   
>>> gel type batteries. Make sure you install some type of a fuse on
>>> the positive side of the connection.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Mark Nash - Lists wrote:
>>>
>

Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know

[John J. Thomas]

Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone?


>-Original Message-
>From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 10:03 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
>
>Not to change the subject, but
>
>  on that page, I fund this a lot more disturbing..
>
>http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/vonage_fire.html
>
>wispa wrote:
>> That at least SOME people agree with me.
>> 
>> http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/regulatory?from=50
>> 
>> The second entry on that page is very interesting.
>> 
>> While this entry is a bit out of date, he makes a very interesting point... 
>> That the feds are trying to figure out how to mandate the costs of whatever 
>> they want on industry...  Very much akin to requiring every home to be built 
>> with peepholes, and platforms at our windows, so they look in on us without 
>> difficulty.  Maybe even requiring remote control drapes? 
>> 
>> Yeah, yeah, I know, you have to be a political radical to NOT want that 
>> built 
>> into all our homes... but, he has a point. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mark Koskenmaki  <> Neofast, Inc
>> Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
>> 541-969-8200
>> 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] School wants authentication

[John J. Thomas]

>-Original Message-
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 02:19 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] School wants authentication
>
>I have a customer who is a high school. They have fiber run to switches 
>in 10 buildings. All of those buildings are connected through one giant 
>private class B via a DHCP server. We serve wireless to 100% of the
>campus, indoors and out, over this same network with several bridged APs
>(all certified and not exceeding any power rules - I promise).

>> Please tell me you are routing between the wired and wireless segments.


They
>would like authentication of users. I tried setting WPA2 with Radius
>Auth and created a mess. Every time the AP signal would hand off from
>one AP to another (which happens every couple of minutes or more often) 
>the system would force re-authentication. It is a bit of a mess.
>Configuration of Windows XP for Radius Auth on WPA2 reminds me of the
>bad old days of having to tweak Trumpet Winsock or dealing with Windows 
>Dial-up Adapter version 1.0.
>
>We had another issue with the APs just constantly forcing
>re-authentication via Radius. We have opted for WPA2 Passphrase to
>deliver AES encryption for now. This still leaves us with the
>authentication issue. They currently have a DHCP server with zero
>logging of users. People just connect and get an IP. It is a mess. I
>want to propose a better solution.
>
>I would like to see an authentication solution via a hotspot portal or
>equivalent which would force credentials be delivered by a user before
>any user has access to anything via wired or wireless network. Does
>anyone know a good way to do this? I have many ideas but I have never
>really done this and I would like to hear what others would propose to
>see if my ideas mesh or not. It is also good to see how others handle
>this type of situation. I am leaning to a Mikrotik hotspot gateway which
>I think will do it all. What say the rest of you?
>Scriv
>

>> If they have Windows Server 2003, and the AP's support it, MS CHAP with PEAP 
>> works well for secure access. Since  generally deploy Cisco Airespace, we 
>> can use the built in hotspot functionality for guest and other access.

>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

[John J. Thomas]

Yes, especially if it would have multiple power taps. We are working on some 
stuff that would might need 12, 24 and 48 volts DC.

John


>-Original Message-
>From: Russ Kreigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:18 AM
>To: ''WISPA General List''
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>
>
>Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until
>the batteries are gone and need to be recharged.
>
>The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah
>charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the
>batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might
>burn up the charger.
>
>Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V
>system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with
>before you start any modifications.
>
>We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution.
>Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive
>outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too
>expensive.
>
>I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local
>power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the
>generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the
>utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically.
>
>We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter
>output, or additional external batteries.
>
>Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Russ Kreigh
>Network Engineer
>OnlyInternet.Net
>Supernova Technologies
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of paul hendry
>Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>
>Scott,
>
>Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in 
>parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't 
>changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery 
>count.
>
>Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these 
>things to see if they charged ;)
>
>Cheers,
>
>P.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>
>The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the 
>original configuration.  Changing the quantity and/or type of battery 
>risks damaging either the charger or the batteries.
>
>Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes 
>the runtime.
>
>paul hendry wrote:
>> Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got 
>an 
>> old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is 
>> they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they 
>> are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those 
>
>> sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 
>2 
>> connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each.
>>
>> Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries 
>> instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really 
>
>> want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> P.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>On 
>> Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
>> Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
>>
>> I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, 
>$100
>> batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I 
>> have
>> out in the field (80w).  It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, 
>and 
>> a
>> 19" TV on the QVC to load it up properly.  Now instead of 1 hour I get 
>
>> 13
>> hours.  Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this.  
>My 
>> goal
>> is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a 
>> sensible
>> price.
>>
>> One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to 
>> simply
>> take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of 
>
>> the
>> generator.  I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to 
>go.
>> It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 
>> 1000w
>> generators and putting large custom tanks on them.  That is if your 
>UPS 
>> is
>> not on the top of a water tower or something. ;)
>>
>> Mark Nash
>> Network Engineer
>> UnwiredOnline.Net
>> 350 Holly Street
>> Junction City, OR 97448
>> http://www.uwol.net
>> 541-998-
>> 541-998-5599 fax
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on U

Re: Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know

[John J. Thomas]

My point was that they are slamming VOIP, when the cell phone companies stuff 
doesn't work any better. And, cell phone users have been paying a lot of money 
for upgrade to the cell phone networks that haven't even happened yet.

John




>-Original Message-
>From: wispa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:32 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: Vonage  WasRe:  [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
>
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:01:16 +, John J. Thomas wrote
>> Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone?
>>
>
>I have dialed 911 and had the call dropped.
>
>I guess I should sue the cell phone company and lobby Congress to ensure 911
>calls cannot be dropped.
>
>Or maybe that's patently absurd.
>
>
>
>Mark Koskenmaki  <> Neofast, Inc
>Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
>541-969-8200
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] ot, linux for home users

[John J. Thomas]

Here are some ideas...

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/differences/

John 


>-Original Message-
>From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 9, 2007 10:47 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] ot, linux for home users
>
>Hi All,
>
>With all the uproar I'm reading about the computing disaster known as Vista 
>I wonder about setting up Linux machines for folks.  Especially those that 
>just want to do email and surf the net.
>
>I thought I'd set something up here and let the kids use it.  I'm NO linix 
>guy so I need something with a gui and works as closely to xp as I can.  A 
>company that'll sell tech support would be a nice addition too.
>
>Would putting Linux on mid range pc's for our average user be a disaster 
>from a tech support standpoint?  Or is there a version that'll run windows 
>programs and has the look and feel of xp?
>
>thanks,
>Marlon
>(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
>(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
>42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.

[John J. Thomas]

I wonder if they know what the word "multicast" measn...


John

>-Original Message-
>From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 08:19 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
>
>Even worse than the Friday night phenomenon is say Saturdays in the 
>fall.  Layne Sisk had some pretty nasty things to say about the IPTV 
>solution used in Utah on football saturdays and how the usage would 
>honestly bring the fiber ring to it knees.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
>Dawn DiPietro wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in  progress, since 
>> George brought it up he felt it was appropriate.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dawn DiPietro
>>
>> According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than
>> 4 hours of TV each day.
>> http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
>>
>> Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of
>> time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even
>> if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is 
>> high)
>> we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average
>> American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study)
>> we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a
>> full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for 
>> viewing on
>> demand.
>> http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264
>>
>> And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free
>> Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high
>> dollar services or would prefer not to.
>>
>> The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD
>> per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions
>> that will need to be addressed in this answer.
>>
>> First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of
>> American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one
>> continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will
>> continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve.
>>
>> Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to
>> forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If
>> we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of
>> 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable
>> quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not
>> take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should
>> these services be required.
>>
>> What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering 
>> sub
>> 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply
>> refuse to admit it yet.
>>
>> Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait
>> for the inevitable crisis.
>>
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular

[John J. Thomas]

Sprint EVDO is $59-79 per month, and there are hardware routers that accept the 
card.

John

>-Original Message-
>From: Pete Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 05:09 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
>
>The $10/mo for web access with Sprint ONLY applies to the use on the 
>phone. When you plug in the data cable, and use it as a modem, its like 
>$0.30/kb. Learning that lesson cost me.
>The unlimited phone-as-a-modem or data card rate is around $39/mo.
>
>Does anyone know if there are drivers/capabilities to link a data card 
>to a Mikrotik or StarOS box? I guess that there are other Linux drivers 
>out there, so my thinking may work.
>I have considered for some time the possibilities of making a box to 
>mount in my car (car-puter) with a Sprint (or Cingular, or Verizon, or 
>whoever) cellular type data connection, with a WIFI client as the 
>primary (or secondary) mode of connection. With DDNS, access to the dash 
>mounted camera, GPS stream, etc should be easy enough, making it a 
>roll-your-own LowJack type system. Also, in the car, an ethernet jack to 
>plug a laptop into could be nice, as well as opening the possibilities 
>to put in an ATA to make VOIP calls, as well as adding a WIFI AP. $39/mo 
>for unlimited data connectivity, especially if it gives the 
>speed/latency required to do VOIP, seems like a bargain compared to 
>$129/mo for 2000 minutes. I guess a Windows-based system could do all of 
>those things, but the RAM/processor/etc/boot time/bluescreens associated 
>with Windoze don't seem to make it conducive to this type of project, IMO.
>
>The car-puter installation plan things that I have read about seem to 
>focus on GPS and MP3 playing. Since my wreck 6 yrs ago, where I couldn't 
>prove to the insurance company (5 eyewitnesses from every direction from 
>the intersection and a police report weren't good enough) that I had the 
>green light. I have been thinking about a car-mounted DVR with cameras 
>in the grill, the dash, and in the back to offer video defense in a car 
>accident claim. Showing the judge, the insurance agent, or whoever a DVD 
>of the video surveillance of the accident could save a lot of time and 
>hassle.
>
>What I wish someone would sell for a car (these things probably all 
>exist in one form or another with various systems) is a computer that 
>will act as a:
>DVR security cam recorder (cam pointed at the driver seat to 
>prosecute the car thief, + cams on bumpers to witness accidents)
>Data port (ethernet + WIFI AP)
>Web server (with DDNS support to access the stored data, even when 
>the car is away from the house, like at an impound yard or after being 
>stolen)
>MP3 player
>Realtime ODBII scanning/recording/diagnostics of the car.
>VOIP system.
>GPS stream recording. (to show he teenage driver when/how fast she 
>was really driving)
>
>I would think that these things could all be incorporated for under $2k, 
>mounted in the trunk, and it would be something that would sell like 
>crazy for $3k installed.
>
>I guess what I would like is a retail version of this with more features:
>
>http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/d04305f2dbbf1110vgnvcm104eecbccdrcrd.html
>
>pd
>
>
>Rich Comroe wrote:
>> What a rip!  Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint 
>> contract.  What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract?  Why 
>> doesn't he just terminate?  Getting a $1200 monthly bill is 
>> ridiculous! UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about 
>> $10/month, and there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a 
>> computer (other than unreasonably large download usage).  And it's 
>> EVDO, so it blows away that measley 125 - 175 kbit.  I really think 
>> those PCMCIA cards are a rip-off for service cost compared to just 
>> getting unlimited data service to your cellphone.  I love ppc6700 
>> windows phones ... a lot lighter and smaller than a laptop yet nearly 
>> as capable.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" 
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
>>
>>
>>> oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year.  :-p
>>>
>>> Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal?
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
>>>
>>>
 Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think 
 paying you your normal rates would cost less than $1200 to 
 Cingular.  Suggest that your unlimited service is still less 
 expensive than overages.

 Mike Hammett wrote:
> I have a potential customer that wanted to "try