Re: [WISPA] 120* Sectors

[John Scrivner]

Your problem is likely peer to peer file sharing I bet. Do you have the 
ability to see what is actually being sent per IP address on your 
network? A flood from a peer to peer "attack" can bring your wireless 
network to its knees. One client with multiple sessions can do the 
damage all by themselves. Star OS and Mikrotik are two things that can 
be your friend here. Star OS has nice IP Traffic Analysis tools built 
in. I hear Mikrotik can isolate and throttle your peer to peer traffic 
to a low level to force some sanity on your network. Best to move this 
out to the edge as much as possible to limit the radio airtime from 
being flooded with traffic. I have provisions in my acceptable use 
policy which limit what a customer can do including no peer to peer use 
or allowance for termination if they cause problems on the network. The 
key is we shut them down if they break the rules. The network troubles 
go away then.

Good luck,
Scriv


Brian Rohrbacher wrote:


Here is what I use.
http://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-antennas/2_4Ghz/DT-AN-24-120H-135.html 



I have three mounted back to back on a pole.  It all worked fine until 
I hit a higher number of subscribers.  Maybe it's the interference 
from too many subs or maybe it's the fact that a majority of my subs 
are locked into 1M air rate, or maybe its because the subs are NLOS, 
or maybe because of the F/B or side to side isolation.  So what is my 
problems?  High pings and timeouts.  Only when traffic is high.  Or 
maybe my 600k upload is maxed out and everything is stacking up.  One 
thing I do know is I hooked up subs I shouldn't have.


I am looking for advice on antennas.  Check out the ones I am using 
ans point me to 3 sectors that will perform good back to back, NLOS, 
and maybe a higher gain to grab a little more signal to get the 1M 
subs up to 11M.


Thanks all.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Good Evening Folks

[John Scrivner]

WOW! Boggs is here! And Victoria! and Jack Unger! What happened? I went 
to Argentina and you guys all came to WISPA to hang out? I guess I need 
to run off to the other side of the planet more often. Now don't leave 
just cause I am back OK!

:-)
Welcome gang. Glad to see all of you.
Scriv



Roger Boggs wrote:


Thanks Tom - and all others.  Good to hear from all the old names/faces.

I've learned more about copper cable crimpers here in the last two 
days than I have

from any other wireLESS list I've been on in the last two years!

:-)



At 11:22 AM 2/23/2006, you wrote:

Its always good to hear a chime in from one of the original early 
guys in the game, now and then.

Lots of stuff happening here in WISP land.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the senate.]

[John Scrivner]

Thank you, all of you, who worked with WISPA to get those comments on 
the 04-186 issue. We all owe a special thanks to our new friend Frannie 
Wellings at Free Press also. She has been absolutely key in helping make 
this issue appear on the legislative radar. The dream may actually come 
true here guys. Please read this in its entirety. I will likely be 
calling on you again soon as this issue gains steam.

Kindest regards,
John Scrivner


 Original Message 
Subject:Great news! We now have two unlicensed bills in the senate.
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:36 -0500
From:   Frannie Wellings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:     John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Hi John,

We've had some positive developments in the Senate and I thought you and 
all of the wonderful folks from the WISP community who called and 
e-mailed their senators would want to know. 

On Friday, February 17th, two bills were introduced in the Senate that 
would help to open the white spaces. Both bills direct the Federal 
Communications Commission to move quickly to free-up the empty broadcast 
channels for unlicensed use so that they can be used for wireless broadband.


Senators George Allen (R-VA), John Kerry (D-MA), John Sununu (R-NH) and 
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bi-partisan bill entitled the Wireless 
Innovation Act of 2006 (WINN Act). Senate Commerce Committee Chairman 
Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced the American Broadband for Communities Act 
(ABC Act).


The two bills are very similar and ideally the Senators will join 
together behind one bill. We're so lucky to have five senators taking 
action here and expect more to sign on. This is really an important step 
and the input from the WISP community has been remarkably valuable.  
Please thank everyone who took the time to get involved.  They should be 
encouraged that their calls matter and they really should know that 
their comments in the 04-186 docket are really key.  I'm so glad that so 
many WISPs submitted comments.


I might be coming back to you soon asking for the WISPs to call their 
senators in support of unlicensed spectrum as we see what happens with 
the two bills.  Hopefully they will join into one bill then we have to 
get that bill passed in the Commerce Committee and then the full Senate.


Thanks again for all of your help.

Best,

Frannie


P.S. - Here are some statements from the Senators...

Senator Kerry has been an important leader on this issue, working hard 
to introduce legislation to open the white spaces. He said of the 
legislation, "Instead of just talking about it, we need to make 
affordable broadband a reality everywhere Making this technology 
available in all corners of our country is good for our families, 
demonstrates the spirit of American innovation and promotes our success 
in the global economy."


Senator Allen said of the WINN Act, "This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet."


Senator Stevens, the chairman of the key committee, stated: "Allowing 
unlicensed operations in the broadcast band could play a significant 
role in bringing wireless broadband and home networking to more of our 
citizens by lowering costs, particularly in Alaska where connectivity is 
so important due to our remoteness."







begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: [TVWHITESPACE] news exerpt that 04-186 may be moving at the FCC]

[John Scrivner]

If you never thought you had a voice in D.C. then you were wrong. I was 
starting to think a person could not make a difference until I started 
seeing what we have seen of late from D.C. The access to television 
channels spaces is the biggest step we could have ever hoped to make in 
providing universal wireless broadband access in the United States. It 
was quite possibly the biggest reason I wanted to see a WISP run 
organization created to work for better policy and law for our industry. 
We do not have this television space yet but all indications of late are 
pointing to the direction of the passage of 04-186 that so many of you 
took the time to comment on. You made it happen.  Whether it happens now 
or not you can know you made your voices heard and I am proud of all of 
you  for your efforts to help your industry.

Kindest regards,
John Scrivner


 Original Message 
Subject:[TVWHITESPACE] news exerpt that 04-186 may be moving at the FCC
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:18:12 -0500
From:   Jim Snider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: 	FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



COMMUNICATIONS DAILY

February 27, 2006 Monday

SECTION: TODAY'S NEWS

LENGTH: 487 words

HEADLINE: Stalled White Spaces Rulemaking Closer to FCC Vote

The FCC, under growing congressional and high-tech sector pressure, is
closer to approving a rulemaking opening unused TV channels to
unlicensed use, sources said. The final "white spaces" rule could come
this summer and would take effect after the DTV transition ends in 2009.


A white spaces bill unveiled last week by Senate Commerce Committee
Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) and other senators (CD Feb 21 p1) would open
unused broadcast TV spectrum between 72 and 698 MHz. Sen. Allen (R-Va.)
also introduced a bill. The war over white spaces will pit broadcasters
against Microsoft and other high-tech firms eager for more spectrum to
be used by Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices. Broadcasters historically
have urged the FCC to move cautiously, especially given uncertainty as
they convert systems to digital.

"I'm hearing this is moving, maybe not this week, but relatively soon,"
said a lawyer who lobbies the FCC. "Since Congress is getting involved,
it gives [Chmn.] Martin cover to stand up to the broadcasters and that
may be all he needs." Opening TV white spaces to unlicensed use ranked
high as a recommendation in a 2002 report by the FCC's Spectrum Policy
Task Force. In May 2004, the FCC authorized a white spaces notice of
proposed rulemaking that has languished since. The FCC was said to be
near approval of a white spaces order in 2005, just before former Chmn.
Michael Powell left the Commission, but never pulled the trigger.

Conventional wisdom has been that Chmn. Martin is reluctant to move
forward. When the NPRM was voted out, he voiced concern about "the
proceeding's impact on the broadcasters and their transition to digital
television." Martin expressed similar sentiments in Dec. 2002, when the
FCC launched an inquiry into permitting unlicensed transmitters to
operate in additional frequency bands.

"I'm hearing lots of noises that were more positive than anything I
expected, because Kevin Martin has traditionally been so hostile" to the
proposal, a regulatory attorney said: "There seems like there's more
openness than I ever expected that we'd see." Introduction of white
spaces bills "would seem to give him cover to proceed if he was inclined
to do so," a 2nd attorney said: "The problem is going to be working
through adequate protection and ensuring the technology will work to
protect incumbents. It sounds easy in principle. It may be more
difficult in practice."


J.H. Snider, Ph.D.
Director of Research, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation
1630 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20009
Phone: 202/986-2700
Fax: 202/986-3696
Web: www.newamerica.net 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net

My Personal Blog: jhsnider.net/telecompolicy





begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[John Scrivner]

The Nuvio guy told me they did not have 911 when I talked to them. When 
did this change?

Scriv


Mac Dearman wrote:

The Hell you say I can't!   
 
 
Pick your towns and get the check book out  - $50.00 per number and 
start talking!!! This includes unlimited long distance as well as 
local calls - - -with all the whistles and bells - bar none!
 
 
337 Crowley LA

337 De Ridder LA
337 Lafayette LA
337 Lawtell LA
337 Leesville LA
337 Lake Charles LA
337 New Iberia LA
337 Opelousas LA
337 St Martinville LA
337 Sulphur LA
337 Vinton LA
337 Youngsville LA
 
Mac Dearman

Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com 
www.mac-tel.us 
www.RadioResponse.org  (Katrina Relief)
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4228
318.303.4229
 
 
 

 


- Original Message -
*From:* JohnnyO 
*To:* Mac Dearman 
*Cc:* WISPA General List 
*Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 7:59 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

Mac - you can't provide it either :) Please let me know if you
can...

337-774  


Let me know if you can provide local to me service - Also - will
you sell me unlimited plans ? I'd be willing to pay $50.00/mo for
unlimited useage. They only use about 9000-12000 LOCAL minutes per
month

JohnnyO

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 19:08 -0600, Mac Dearman wrote:


Just send me a connection fee and I will take care of the rest of
it  :-) 



How many lines, whats the area code and how fast do you need
them? With 911 of course. 



Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com 
www.mac-tel.us 
www.RadioResponse.org  (Katrina Relief)
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4228
318.303.4229 




  


- Original Message - 

*From:* JohnnyO  

*To:* WISPA General List  

*Cc:* Judd's List  

*Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 5:01 PM 

*Subject:* [WISPA] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance 




I am looking for a appliance/device that will work as a VoIP
Gateway/PBX for 4-8 POTS lines. I am not looking for an
Asterisk solution but seeking out a plug and play appliance
for under $2k or less.

I cannot get a PRI in my area - I cannot get a ISDN BRI in my
area either - The only option I have is POTS lines which I
can get for $23.00/mo each.

I must have local services due to this being on a shipping
channel and 911 is very critical.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

JohnnyO




-- 
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] VoIP/PBX Gateway appliance

[John Scrivner]

Primus tells me they are more than a VOIP company and that they do make 
money. They impressed me in my dealings with them. Can you share more 
about your information about Primus? I have a big interest in knowing 
anything I can about them right now.

Thanks,
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


You haven't seen it yet, because Lingo is not profitable yet.
Primus owns Lingo and Primus is basically an International VOIP company.

Like so many VOIP Providers, they are still trying to figure out how 
to make a profit.


Delta3 (which is the backend for VZ's VoiceWing) made $9.1M in revenue 
in 4Q05 and just $22k in income.


Vonage has a customer acquisition cost that is 20 times their MRC.

Regards,

Peter


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:


I've been personally delighted with two years of Lingo giving me
unlimited USA/Canada/EUROPE calling on 7 lines each for $19.95/month
and an unusually rich set of features (like e-mailing me compressed WAV
files of all incoming voicemails, etc.).
 
Now, that's retail w/box and support.
 
I've taken the box on trips and routed it through my laptop Ethernet 
while
the laptop is on a V.32 dialup and it works but sounds kind of like a 
cell

phone but having my local number with me in Europe and having unlimited
free calls throughout Europe from Europe or Eastern Europe for ZERO
additional cost is kinda cool.
 
It's SIP but they keep promising a soft phone for the line, like 
Vonaga, but

haven't seen it yet.
 
. . . j o n a t h a n




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Blue Mound / Decatur

[John Scrivner]

If anyone here serves the area of Blue Mound / Decatur, Illinois please 
let me know. I will introduce you to the prospect if you do serve that area.

Thanks,
Scriv

begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Group Focus

[John Scrivner]

The only reason we run a public list server at all is to give us a 
chance to promote and improve the efforts of our organization and 
industry and to hopefully win more membership to give us a larger and 
more powerful voice in developing the policy that runs our industry. 
Many of the negative  conversations of late are doing the opposite. We 
need to all cool down and concentrate on making our posts positive and 
working to the common good or we need to keep our keyboards silent if we 
can not be civil. Let's PLEASE stop the bickering and start doing what 
needs to be done to make our industry better. If anyone has a complaint 
about the way anything is being done in WISPA then the ONLY way you have 
a voice is to tell [EMAIL PROTECTED] that you want something changed. Then 
we will address your complaint in a civil manner and will consider your 
request formally.

Scriv
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[John Scrivner]

I spent a good deal of time speaking to Martin Stewart of Adzilla today. 
Here is the way it all works.


The system has three completely different ways of presenting advertising 
or messages of any kind to customers.


First, if you are an ISP and you wish to be able to sell ads on CNN, 
Weather.com, etc. then this is the only way to go. Your cable company 
does this with the same equivalent system known as cable ad insertion. 
This is a win-win-win for all concerned. The advertising networks have 
trouble focusing ads to a given customer service area generally. With 
this system you can replace a generic  "Ford" ad on CNN.com for instance 
with the local Ford dealer in your market. The advertising company who 
sells ads for CNN gets paid, Adzilla gets paid to insert the ad, you get 
paid for selling to the local dealer and for presenting it to his 
potential customers in his local area.


It is important to note that the above option is the major strength and 
novel approach that Adzilla brings to the table above any other form of 
web advertising. In my opinion it represents the only true all around 
positive way of selling advertising online. If it works as advertised I 
am 100% sold on this concept.


Second, you can use Adzilla as a means of selling ads as banners 
inserted at the top of a web window above the content page. This is not 
something that would be appealing to most WISPs who are not wanting to 
alter the web experience for a customer. This does not mean that Adzilla 
would force this on you. You would have the option of using this second 
option or not. This would be ideal for a free hotspot area where ads 
would be the only revenue stream. I think this would work well in common 
areas, conference locations, coffee shops, etc. who wanted to offer free 
Wifi and did not mind if ads were inserted. I would consider that for a 
free hotspot area in some instances.


I can see one place where this would be a big help to my business. That 
would be for past due accounts. I would not have a problem with 
inserting a friendly past due reminder at the top of web pages as 
opposed to just turning off their service at least for a few days. I bet 
this would equate to faster payments and less non-pay disconnects.


Third, this is called interstitial insertion and is a bit aggressive. 
This option allows for content relevant pages to appear between a search 
entry and the intended page. This would give very targeted advertising 
to a potential ad client but would be intrusive beyond any comfort level 
I would have. With that said though I could see that in a walled garden 
free Wifi deployment this model would be acceptable. You could offer 
links to either ad supported free Wifi access or a credit card online 
form to buy the "no advertising" access. I really see this as being a 
positive way to offer choice to your potential clients.


Choices like this would be great for me if I were in a strange town, 
needed to check email, wanted to know what the local restaurants were 
around the hotspot, wanted to see a local map with businesses in the 
area, etc. At that point the ads start to actually build value. This is 
when advertising becomes part of the relevant content to the customer. I 
intend to deploy this in a positive way and show it off to not only my 
local businesses but also the local city government, state government, 
customers, etc. I will make my downtown a hotspot that everyone enjoys 
visiting online. I think it will also make me some money in the long run.

Scriv


Blair Davis wrote:

If I publish a web page, who are you to modify it before displaying it 
to a user?


I'd start getting annoyed if my web page displayed differently 
depending on whose network it flows thru


I also feel that this is a bad idea in general because I think it 
could end up weakening the 'safe harbor' provisions that protect us 
from liability over data content.  We are not censors.  Beyond the 
monitoring needed to assure network integrity, we do not monitor or 
censor our users in any way and we do not plan to.


IMO, we should not modify the data flowing to the user in any way 
without the express, informed consent of the user.  If a user wants 
you to censor, modify or block  pages, fine  if you wish to offer 
that service.  For liability reasons, we choose not to.


Eric DaVersa wrote:


Agreed, but there is a free lunch...for the web publishers and ad
servers you allow to sell over your pipes.  


Take the old example of the Internet as a highway.  You've built a
highway (your wireless network) and people (your customers) pay to drive
on it.  Along the way there are billboard advertisements (web ads.)  


You collect nothing from the billboards that people view.  In essence,
the advertisers get a free lunch from your highway.

Adzilla basically gives you the opportunity to place your own billboards
in front of those existing billboards so that you, as the highway
operator, can receive a reven

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[John Scrivner]

Wrong. Adzilla works with the advertising agencies who serve these ads. 
Nothing is done without the full blessing of the content and advertising 
providers of the content. The only time a replacement happens is when 
the ad agency who serves the ads for that particular page allows for 
insertions to happen. This does not circumvent or force any advertiser 
to lose placement. This is how it has been explained to me.

Scriv


Frank Muto wrote:

Who determines the "relevancy" of the add? So what I am seeing here, 
is if I have an ad campaign with one of the web publishers mention 
below with the same product or service, the Adzilla ad would take it's 
place over our ad?

Frank Muto
President/CEO
FSM Marketing Group, Inc

- Original Message -
*From:* Eric DaVersa 
*To:* 'WISPA General List' 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:16 PM
*Subject:* RE: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

Jory is correct. No part of web content is altered as that is
copyright infringement and illegal.

The way the system works is within the existing ecosystem of the
web publishing and ad serving world. Many web publishers
(websites) establish relationships with ad servers such as 24/7
Media, Double Click, etc. because they lack the infrastructure to
sell advertising nationally. They set up automated communications
links between each other to serve ads on the websites. There’s a
financial agreement and structure based on common ad industry specs.

So in the existing world here’s how it works. Your customer clicks
on a website. A request for the content is sent to the appropriate
location where that website’s content is hosted. Within that
website are banner ads that cycle through. A request is sent (all
this in real time) from the website to their ad server partners so
that an ad can get served up. Your customer sees the ad as part of
the overall web page even though the publisher. The website makes
money off the ad and you get nothing as the ISP.

In the Adzilla world it works very much the same way, except that
on the way out of network core the http traffic request is tagged
based upon contextual relativity. In real time the Adzilla
appliance determines if the ad can be replaced if Adzilla has a
relationship with the ad server or web publisher. In essence, the
calculation asks, C/an Adzilla serve up a higher paying ad to the
ad server company?/ If so a more relevant ad is served into the
website because Adzilla has a relationship with the ad serving
company.

What Adzilla has developed is a very unique method to allow ISPs
to participate in a revenue share of ads running across their
networks. The percentage of pages surfed that can be “optimized”
is typically between 5~10% so we’re talking very minimal. But it
adds up quickly and their reach is growing.

To be quite honest, it took me a few explanations and a PowerPoint
before the light clicked on since the ad world was foreign to me.
Hope this helped explain.

Eric DaVersa

Vice-President, Business Development

**NetLogix**

OFFICE: 858.764.1998

CELL: 858.245.6702

FAX: 858.764.1982

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jory Privett
*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:05 PM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

I think you are not understanding the way the system works. Please
correct me if I am wrong here. This does not modify every web
page, only those pages that have the Adzilla tags in them. The
device just uses the tag to display the adds that are setup for
your area. IS this correct?

If it modified every page that a user went to you would have a lot
of unhappy customers very quickly.

Jory Privett

WCCS

- Original Message -

*From:* Blair Davis 

*To:* WISPA General List 

*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:19 PM

*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

If I publish a web page, who are you to modify it before
displaying it to a user?

I'd start getting annoyed if my web page displayed differently
depending on whose network it flows thru

I also feel that this is a bad idea in general because I think
it could end up weakening the 'safe harbor' provisions that
protect us from liability over data content. We are not
censors. Beyond the monitoring needed to assure network
integrity, we do not monitor or censor our users in any way
and we do not plan to.

IMO, we should not modify the data flowing to the user in any
 

Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

[John Scrivner]

Some of the ads that flow through now are able to be inserted over with 
local ads you can sell (legally and with permission from all involved). 
This, again, mirrors the cable television ad insertion strategy. Those 
ads can be replaced by ads you can sell in your market and all the 
players involved will be compensated and will bless the act of inserting 
over some other random ads. The reason is simple. Focused and targeted 
ads sell for more than just random broad spectrum ads. The better we get 
at being involved in the ad sales and insertion process, the more 
valuable this medium for advertising will become. Localizing ads for the 
Internet is a really big deal. I was in cable television before ad 
insertion and watched it move into the cable business. At first ads 
would sell for peanuts, just like banners do now. Over time it added a 
massive amount of revenue to the cable operator bottom line and 
continues to grow to this day. ISP ad insertion will be the same model, 
growing, maturing and increasing in dollars into your business.

Scriv


Eric DaVersa wrote:


You do not have to sell a thing. It’s a real time automated transaction.

If you did want to sell or send communications messaging, you have a 
GUI tool for insertion.


Eric DaVersa

Vice-President, Business Development

**NetLogix**

OFFICE: 858.764.1998

CELL: 858.245.6702

FAX: 858.764.1982

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

-Original Message-
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:28 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

OK, I understand the concept.

It looks to me though, that most of the time we'll not have the right 
to change page content. Even though it's being delivered over our medium.


So I couldn't replace Ford car ads that no one here cares about and 
insert the local Napa ads that they do care about.


I can't see this as a viable thing if I can't find a way to sell local 
advertising that would show up whenever someone went to MSN or Yahoo 
or Google or whatever.


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:* Frank Muto 

*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ; WISPA General
List 

*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:05 PM

*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Adzilla & Revenue Streams

Blair, I feel your concern is a valid one.

This is a basic twist of the walled network e.g., AOL uses. As
within AOL's network portal and browser they would have their paid
advertisers' shown. As a dialup provider (97-2002), we did the
same thing using our own portal and custom browser of which the
user would use. Our free-based users would be locked into the
portal but our paid users would not be. If they went outside our
portal using their browser of choice, we did not control their end
destination. Our TOS spelled out these terms.

Steering a customer away from a company's website like Amazon.com
and redirecting the HTTP request through an affiliate channel, is
not good practice in my opinion. I'm not saying this is the case
in point, but there are companies like Zango, 180 Solutions and
others that do this and cost many affiliates commissions when the
software, (e.g., P2P) or bundled software is installed on the
customers machine using various methods, such as an Active-X
pop-up asking the user to install certain software.

For an example, we fight click fraud everyday that use these
methods. When a user does a search on say Google and clicks on an
affiliate link, the user is redirected to another affiliate who
would get the sale if the customer purchased the advertised item
or paid for the lead generation.

Frank Muto
President/CEO
FSM Marketing Group, Inc

- Original Message -

*From:* Blair Davis 

If I publish a web page, who are you to modify it before
displaying it to a user?

I'd start getting annoyed if my web page displayed differently
depending on whose network it flows thru

I also feel that this is a bad idea in general because I think
it could end up weakening the 'safe harbor' provisions that
protect us from liability over data content. We are not
censors. Beyond the monitoring needed to assure network
integrity, we do not monitor or censor our users in any way
and we do not plan to.

IMO, we should not modify the data flowing to the user in any
way without the expr

Re: [WISPA] Crimp or solder?

[John Scrivner]

We always use the Times Microwave EZ's also and have had stellar 
performance and reliability. They are not cheap but the quality is there 
and the cost savings for labor help offset the price somewhat.

Scriv


Bob Moldashel wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

We've always terminated LMR 195/400/600 with solder on tips in the 
past. Its a
real pain in the arse to do in many environments.  Can anyone relate 
experiences

with the crimp on tips?  IS there any loss of reliability etc.?

Thanks,
Chris



 


Chris,

We have used times EZ connectors with the captive center pins for 
years and have never had a connector not sweep to specs.  Forget the 
soldering and go with the EZ's


-B-


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: Interference with TV

[John Scrivner]

We have seen this from local oscillator and/or CPU clock oscillator 
interference from wireless radios used for Internet access. The radios 
in question were a Trango Fox one time and a YDI Etherant another time. 
I am guessing any radio using an external connected POE driven board 
over unshielded twisted pair could act as an interfering source. Brand 
is likely not important.


This was corrected using RF Ferrite Beads installed at the cat 5 cable 
right as it comes out of the radio and at the POE end as well. If this 
does not fix it you will have to move the wireless radio or TV antenna 
apart farther than they are now.

Cheers,
Scriv


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


Anyone seen a problem like the one below before?

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: Bill Dale
Cc: Marlon Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Interference with TV


Hi Bill,

I am copying Marlon on this so he will reply as soon as possible.  He 
is out of the office today.  You could try calling him this evening on 
his cell number, 509-988-0260.


Mary Downey
Odessa Office/ACCIMA
509-982-2181
- Original Message - From: Bill Dale
To: Odessa Office Equip Support
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:41 AM
Subject: Interference with TV


   We have good internet speed most of the time and I am happy with my 
setup. Occasionally we loose the internet for some reason, and I have 
to shut off the power to the receiver. This always seems to reset 
everything. All in all we have been very happy, however lately we have 
been having a problem which seems to be getting worse as time goes by.
   Lately, our TV picture becomes pixilated and breaks up, and the 
sound is also disrupted. It seems to happen anytime. (maybe some 
program on the computer is accessing the internet?) If someone gets 
online the TV becomes so bad that at times it is unwatchable. This 
seems to have become progressively worse over the last two or three 
weeks. If I turn off the power to our internet antenna, then we have 
no problem with the TV at all, so I can only presume that the Internet 
antenna is disrupting the signal that our Dish Network antenna is 
receiving. The Dish Network antenna is a duel LNB antenna and this 
problem only occurs on certain channels, so maybe only one LNB is 
bothered by the internet antenna? Is the internet antenna failing and 
sending out interference? Is one of the LNB's on the Dish Network 
antenna failing, or is this just signal interference, and if so, how 
can we get rid of it?
   We would like to be able to use the internet at the same time that 
we are watching TV, so anything you can do to help me would be 
appreciated.

Thanks
Bill Dale
[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] Attention North Dakota WISPs

[John Scrivner]

If you are a WISP in North Dakota I need you to email me offlist. 
Senator Conrad in North Dakota is an important person involved in the 
Commerce Committee and we need you to speak to Conrad or support staff 
for Conrad to let them know how important access to unused television 
channels can be for expanding broadband delivery into rural areas.

Thanks,
Scriv

--
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 Scrivner]

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/

Re: [WISPA] Muni wireless

[John Scrivner]

I am glad to hear this. I am coming to the MUM in Dallas. I have already 
registered actually. I think Mac, Rick and Matt are all coming also. I 
look forward to seeing you guys again. Thanks for the update on mesh for 
Mikrotik coming soon.

Cheers,
Scriv


John Tully wrote:


Hello John,

MikroTik is currently developing the biggest feature of mesh -- easy 
to install systems (no configuration required) that have a radio (or 
more) for local and a radio (or more) for backbone.  This will enable 
WISP to compete better with the expensive Strix and other MESH 
systems.  You will hear more about this at the MikroTik user meeting 
in Dallas - mum.mikrotik.com .


John
www.mikrotik.com

At 06:16 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

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/

[WISPA] [Fwd: question from left field...]

[John Scrivner]

Attention Maine WISPs,
Here is a message from Lisa in Maine with a tower for rent. Lisa is not 
a member of these lists. Please direct any correspondence offlist as we 
do not all need to read the discussion about renting a tower.

All the best,
Scriv

 Original Message 
Subject:question from left field...
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:21:31 -0800
From:   Lisa Menconi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Hi John,

My name is Lisa and I am curious about the world of WISPs. I have NO 
background at all relating to any sort of ISP. I am an accountant, of 
all things! Anyway, I happen to be an accountant for radio broadcasting 
and we are moving one of our FM antennas and may have tower space 
available in Northern Maine. I read an article about WISPs and it seems 
that the rural area where our tower is located could likely benefit 
dramatically from WISP technology. How would I go about finding a 
potential Lessee in need of tower space for his/her WISP in Northern New 
England?


I understand that you are probably a very busy man who is not in the 
business of spoon feeding someone WISP information—especially someone 
you don’t even know. If you happen to know who or where I might ask 
about WISPs in Northern New England as to who may be looking for tower 
space, I would greatly appreciate it. I have no idea how to pursue this 
avenue as I have never explored it before.


Any time you could spare to guide me in some direction would be much 
obliged.


Sincerely,

Lisa Menconi

**Lisa Menconi**

**Menconi Consulting**

(530) 887-9090

(530) 887-9040 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] USF fund reform

[John Scrivner]

Years ago I looked into what it would take to sell access to the 
school. erate is set up so that one company provides all telecom needs 
to the school.  Voice, data etc.  The only companies that can do that 
are the ilec or a clec. 



This is not true in Illinois. We have what is called a "SPIN" number 
which allows us to sell Internet to schools even if they get other 
services from other providers. I am not an ILEC or a CLEC.

Scriv

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform

[John Scrivner]

The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt was 
correct in saying this document should have never been circulated 
outside of WISPA until it was in its final form.


What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea?

Who is asking for this paper?

What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted?

Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, etc.)?

When is it due?

How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even understand 
the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the telecommunications 
infrastructure?


Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for 
you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC Committee 
Chairman gives you the power to completely run the Congressional 
Lobbying efforts of this organization? These are not the same thing.  It 
is time for us to have another teleconference and do what we all agreed 
we were going to do. We need to learn and understand USF before we start 
telling people what we want from this.


I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on it 
until we know what we asking for. I am not happy with having WISPA 
documentation like this becoming fodder for the Brett Glass' of the 
world on public list forums outside of WISPA. We need to discuss how 
anything with a WISPA name attached is handled by this group going 
forward. Public dissemination of WISPA internal documents is no longer 
good practice as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think?

Scriv


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



- Original Message - From: "Brett Glass" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform



Some comments:

   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.



A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be "owned" by anyone. 
WISPA's board does act as if it "owns" the group, though, so this 
fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board 
claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded 
and then did not.



Sigh.  The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp.  We can modify or change it 
anytime that the membership votes to do so.




   The goals for USF should be clarified.  Are laptops for 
kids part of the program goals?



Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of 
the concept of universal service.



Agreed.  That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 
68,000 laptops for school kids.  That number came up in Senate 
testimony about USF reform.




Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local 
entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent?



But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies 
within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most wireless 
carriers do not get USF funding.


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?



Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is 
incidental.


   WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left 
to their own.



Incorrect grammar (embarrassing).

  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.



Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for 
the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a 
group that submitted any such document.



Feel free to provide better wording at any time.  The intent of 
releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive input.


marlon



--Brett Glass


** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD  www.ispcon.com **
** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts **
** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! **

___   The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List   ___
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/archives/
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved. 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform

[John Scrivner]

I assumed this previous post was on an internal WISPA list server and 
was never meant to be publicly disseminated. I apologize to Marlon for 
making this private internal debate a public issue. I am not looking for 
any public discussion of these internal WISPA discussions. This topic 
needs to go into WISPA membership only list discussion areas now and the 
topic is closed for public discussion. Topic closed.

Deepest regrets,
John Scrivner


John Scrivner wrote:

The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt 
was correct in saying this document should have never been circulated 
outside of WISPA until it was in its final form.


What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea?

Who is asking for this paper?

What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted?

Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, 
etc.)?


When is it due?

How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even 
understand the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the 
telecommunications infrastructure?


Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for 
you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC Committee 
Chairman gives you the power to completely run the Congressional 
Lobbying efforts of this organization? These are not the same thing.  
It is time for us to have another teleconference and do what we all 
agreed we were going to do. We need to learn and understand USF before 
we start telling people what we want from this.


I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on 
it until we know what we asking for. I am not happy with having WISPA 
documentation like this becoming fodder for the Brett Glass' of the 
world on public list forums outside of WISPA. We need to discuss how 
anything with a WISPA name attached is handled by this group going 
forward. Public dissemination of WISPA internal documents is no longer 
good practice as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think?

Scriv


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



- Original Message - From: "Brett Glass" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform



Some comments:

   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.




A 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation cannot be "owned" by anyone. 
WISPA's board does act as if it "owns" the group, though, so this 
fact may be lost on them. Also, several of the members of that board 
claimed that they would step down after the organization was founded 
and then did not.




Sigh.  The MEMBERSHIP owns the corp.  We can modify or change it 
anytime that the membership votes to do so.




   The goals for USF should be clarified.  Are laptops for 
kids part of the program goals?




Even to ask this question shows a fundamential misunderstanding of 
the concept of universal service.




Agreed.  That's why I was shocked to find out that USF had funded 
68,000 laptops for school kids.  That number came up in Senate 
testimony about USF reform.




Was it the original intent that USF exclude small local 
entrepreneurs and give preferential treatment to the incumbent?




But of course! Remember, it was designed to replace cross-subsidies 
within the Bell System -- the original incumbents. Even most 
wireless carriers do not get USF funding.


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?




Congress wants campaign contributions and votes. Anything else is 
incidental.


   WISPA believes that market forces should mostly be left 
to their own.




Incorrect grammar (embarrassing).

  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.




Poor writing style and no citations of sources. The same is true for 
the rest of the document. I'd be embarrassed to be a member of a 
group that submitted any such document.




Feel free to provide better wording at any time.  The intent of 
releasing that doccument before submission was to get constructive 
input.


marlon



--Brett Glass


** ISPCON Spring 2006 - May 16 - 18 - Baltimore, MD  www.ispcon.com **
** THE EVENT for ISPs, WISPS, CLECs and WebHosts **
** Going Wireless? Visit ISPCON before the leap! **

___   The ISP-WIRELESS Discussion List   ___
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform

[John Scrivner]

You answered my questions. I know now where the source of the position 
paper concept came from. Thank you. I agree it is important and we need 
to do this.  I still do not believe anyone but WISPA members has any 
right to read or say anything about how we develop a WISPA position 
paper. That is a WISPA function and is not something others get a say 
in. If some things are not for our members only then why should anyone 
ever pay for membership?

Scriv



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


Let me take this point by point John.

more 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: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [isp-wireless] USF fund reform


The unfortunate dialog below is a perfect demonstration of why Matt 
was correct in saying this document should have never been circulated 
outside of WISPA until it was in its final form.


What led to the Senate Commerce Committee position paper idea?



My discussions with MY senator's staff.  She's on the committee.  He 
said we needed one.




Who is asking for this paper?



See above.  The best way to aproach the committee is to have a one 
page possition paper in hand.  I've got the contact people to send out 
paper to and will do so as soon as I have a chance.


From there, I have no idea what will happen.  Hopefully they'll like 
what we 


have had to say and will ask for wispa's testimony.



What are the criteria for how this is to be drafted?



One page :-).  Other than that, I don't know that there really is 
any.  This is about us.  It's what WE want to see THEM do.  But only 
the basics. 50,000 foot type stuff.




Are there actual size constraints (number of words, content allowed, 
etc.)?



I was told one page.  I just wasn't able to clearly line out our views 
and justify them in less than the 1.5 to 2 pages I typed up.




When is it due?



Don't know.  The bills are in process right now.  I think sooner than 
later is better.  Like yesterday.  Others are likely hammering on 
congress full speed right now.




How can we draft a position paper on USF when none of us even 
understand the inner-workings of this very complex aspect of the 
telecommunications infrastructure?



Easy.  You saw some of the same hearings I did.  Congress IS going to 
change the program.  They are begging for ideas.  We don't have to 
know how it works to know how we wish it worked.  And that's what this 
is all about.




Marlon I say this with the utmost personal respect and admiration for 
you but I mean this, what makes you think that being the FCC 
Committee Chairman gives you the power to completely run the 
Congressional Lobbying efforts of this organization?



Um, the fact that no one else has stepped up to do it?  If you want 
someone else to tackle these issues please feel free to put them in 
place.  I have other things to do anyhow.  So far though, very little 
help has been given on any of these topics.  So I guess until I'm 
fired, I'm it eh?


These are not the same thing.  It is time for us to have another 
teleconference and do what we all agreed we were going to do. We need 
to learn and understand USF before we start telling people what we 
want from this.



No we don't.  We have to know what we think will make it a viable 
program for US.  If congress wants to do something else that's their 
right.  Our job is to make this good for the wisp industry not worry 
that much about the mess that it is today.




I say we cannot have a position paper sent out with the WISPA name on 
it until we know what we asking for.



I thought the papers were pretty clear about what we're asking for.  
It would be better if those went out with the wispa name on them, but 
I believe in it as written enough that I'll be happy to send them out 
with only my name if that's what the group wants.


I am not happy with having WISPA documentation like this becoming 
fodder for the Brett Glass' of the world on public list forums 
outside of WISPA.



Brett Glass is an idiot and a liar.  We've already established that.  
We could have a PERFECT document and he'd pick it apart because he 
didn't write it.  If you worry about what he's got to say you'll never 
accomplish anything worth while, thereby making his day.


As for the value of the public exposure on this.  How can we, as 
wispa, claim to speak for the industry if we don't give the industry a 
chance to have any input?  I think we're more than proving Brett's 
co

[WISPA] Test - Ignore

[John Scrivner]

Testing WISPA list server
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Client Router selection

[John Scrivner]

We have good luck with Linksys. If the customer is a larger business 
client or someone who needs higher reliability and better features we 
often load up Mikrotik on a Routerboard or WRAP board.

Scriv


Bo Hamilton wrote:

Wondering what routers are all of you using at client installs?  What 
are the most reliable and so on? 
thanks in advance!
 
Bo

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] Client Router selection

[John Scrivner]

Sorry to answer my own post but I should also mention that if I ever 
have a larger enterprise client (like a college, hospital, etc.) that 
needs a bullet-proof routing solution I will likely sell them 
Imagestream. My next big router for my core will be an Imagestream. 
Everyone I speak to about them say they are the best out there at any 
price.

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

We have good luck with Linksys. If the customer is a larger business 
client or someone who needs higher reliability and better features we 
often load up Mikrotik on a Routerboard or WRAP board.

Scriv


Bo Hamilton wrote:

Wondering what routers are all of you using at client installs?  What 
are the most reliable and so on? thanks in advance!
 
Bo

NCOWireless.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] I guess we do not count

[John Scrivner]

Here is a copy of a report from Reuters regarding the latest results on 
FCC Form 477 totals. As you can see we are not even mentioned. I guess 
those of you who decided we should not fill out the form got what you 
wantedobscurity and no credit.



Broadband lines jump 32 pct in new US FCC report
Monday 3 April 2006, 4:29pm EST
Printer Friendly 
540, 525, 1, 'printerPopup')>  |  Email Article 
540, 600, 1, 'emailPopup')>  |  Reprints 
http://license.icopyright.net/3.5398?icx_id=nN03320070&edition=US&category=media', 
580, 635, 1, 'purchasePopup')>  |  RSS 



		 

WASHINGTON, April 3 (Reuters) - The number of U.S. subscribers to 
broadband high-speed Internet service jumped 32.3 percent to 42.9 
million lines in the year ended June 2005, the Federal Communications 
Commission reported on Monday.


The number of broadband lines jumped 10.4 million lines over the 
12-month period, 5 million of which were added during the second half of 
that period, the FCC said in a new report.


The United States ranks 12th in the world for broadband subscribers, 
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 
U.S. officials say other countries have subsidized service and people 
live in concentrated areas that are easier to serve.


"Given the geographic and demographic diversity of our nation, the U.S. 
is doing exceptionally well," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in an 
opinion piece published in the Financial Times newspaper on Monday.


U.S. cable and telephone companies are engaged in a fierce battle to 
offer customers a suite of communications services.


The majority of broadband connections, 61 percent, were via cable modem 
service offered by companies like Comcast Corp. (CMCSA.O: Quote 
, Profile 
, 
Research 
) 
while more than 37 percent were digital subscriber lines (DSL) offered 
by telephone companies like AT&T Inc.(T.N: Quote 
, Profile 
, 
Research 
), the 
report found.


DSL is less expensive than cable Internet service but offers slower 
download speeds. The vast majority of cable customers receive between 
2.5 megabits per second (Mbps) and 10 MBPS in at least one direction 
while most DSL customers get between 200 kilobits per second and 2.5 
Mbps, the FCC said.


The FCC last August eased regulations on DSL service for residential 
customers and last month took steps to lift some rules on business 
customers for Verizon Communications (VZ.N: Quote 
, Profile 
, 
Research 
).


Other companies, like AT&T, plan to apply for similar relief for their 
business services.


"To give more Americans access to broadband, we need to encourage this 
kind of infrastructure investment, not discourage it with burdensome 
regulations," Martin said.



begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies 
to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that 
these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of 
the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits 
for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband 
industry and providing incentives for the development of new and 
innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/

My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to 
help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been 
starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have 
for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the 
Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of 
helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise 
me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of 
holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed 
spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the 
wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers 
from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in 
the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some 
compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little 
common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress.


If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, 
Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let 
them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a 
man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it 
and  wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. 
This is terrible news and we need to act quickly.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with 
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help 
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband 
use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of 
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and 
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot 
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give 
them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and 
is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for 
frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment 
the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or 
face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same 
small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from 
other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of 
consideration and should be scrapped.


The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which 
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage 
of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory 
if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than 
ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem 
is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private 
enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the 
thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the 
necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are 
begging to receive.


Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to 
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site 
will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the 
states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak 
out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of 
Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going 
to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is 
not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of 
q

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Here is the text of the message I sent to Honorable John Shimkus of 
Illinois:


The current House Spectrum Bill brought forth by Inslee and others to 
give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help Americans gain 
access to broadband options and could even be regarded as a slap in the 
face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum needed to do the 
job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation 
being introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee at all and could lead 
to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the 
masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the Telephone Industry 
Association has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding 
our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed 
spectrum which acts as a means of keeping multiple competitors out of 
the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing 
offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as 
outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table 
to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having 
too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress.


This bill is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the 
desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and  wonder why you 
even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with 
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help 
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband 
use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of 
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and 
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot 
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give 
them broadband.


A single 6 MHz channel as proposed in the House Spectrum Bill is not a 
true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several 
channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces 
providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes 
delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as 
multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would 
interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In 
short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped.


The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which 
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage 
of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory 
if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than 
ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem 
is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private 
enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the 
thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the 
necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are 
begging to receive.


Honorable John Shimkus, as representative of our mainly rural district 
in Illinois, I am begging you to please consider drafting and submitting 
a competing bill to the House which will task the FCC with finishing 
what they started and passing the 04-186 rulemaking which is the path to 
universal access to low-cost broadband opportunity for all Americans.


I will gladly buy a plane ticket and come to Washington to speak in 
person on this important issue if you so desire. Please act quickly so 
we may see the promise of broadband to all Americans soon. Tasking the 
FCC to pass 04-186 would do more to stimulate broadband availability 
than anything ever proposed by our legislature. Please take the lead in 
this important endeavor and let's give rural citizens equal access to 
the Digital American Dream. Say NO to the current House Spectrum Bill 
and submit a competing proposal that has a chance to do some good.

Respectfully,
John Scrivner

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Thanks Jack. I am reasonably sure that your number 2 assumption is on 
the mark. I used the "slap in the face" statement to illustrate the 
emotional impact these issues have on me and thousands of others who 
tell 60% of potential customers each day that they cannot get their 
broadband because Uncle Sam refuses to give us the spectrum we need to 
bring them broadband.  This borders on outright lunacy.


If the House lawmakers wanted to do some good they would have at least 
read what their Senate counterparts were proposing and saw that undoing 
the FCC hold-up of the 04-186 rulemaking is the key to the entire 
effort. Any other sideline efforts such as the House Spectrum Bill are 
simply ways of tripping up the process and further slowing the wheels of 
real progress. I am appalled that my own Representative, John Shimkus, 
who serves on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee has never once 
even called me for some feedback into what is really happening. I have 
called him asking for support more than once and I even personally went 
to his Washington D.C. office once and delivered papers outlining these 
efforts..


I see more and more why there is so much cynicism about politics today. 
If I were a Congressman I would admit freely and openly if I did not 
understand the nuances of a given subject. After all none of us know 
everything. Most Congressman appear to me to be unable to make that leap 
and ask for real guidance and try to understand what is at stake in 
their decision making. It is not enough for politicians to hide behind 
the rhetoric and be led by cash driven lobbying efforts which direct 
them like lemmings. The lack of objectivity and rational thinking in 
D.C. boggles the mind at times.


With that said I am sure that telling the House they are "Slapping us in 
the face" may be a bit harsh. Maybe they need to hear harsh though if 
they cannot see what is really happening. If I were drafting a bill I 
think I would certainly learn what is at stake and what is being played 
out in the Senate before being part of a crippled effort like that of 
this House Spectrum Bill. Thanks for listening to my rant.

Scriv


Jack Unger wrote:


John,

Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may 
feel "slapped in the face", politics (law-making) is, as we know, not 
about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific 
benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people.  I expect the 
6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below:


1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to 
bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, 
proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how "x" 
amount of spectrum is needed to deliver "y" amount of broadband 
throughput to serve "z" number of citizens.


2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to 
improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of 
the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are "on 
their own" to cope with the consequences.


Thank you for your write-up.
 jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:


John, Well said.
I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face.
I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk 
full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in 
critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a 
lot with 30 Mhz, although tough.  But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum


Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other 
companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 
614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. 
Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA 
believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and 
effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have 
significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the 
wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the 
development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for 
businesses and consumers.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/re

[WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?

[John Scrivner]

I cannot believe I have never read about this before. Is it an April 
Fool's joke? According to the sources I have seen this was released a 
couple of years back. Can anyone confirm or deny the validity of this 
information? Does anyone have a link that leads to a description of 
exactly what can and cannot be done with these bands if it is real? I 
know it is indicating UWB but this does not appear to be the only thing 
it is limited to i I am reading this right.

Many thanks,
Scriv

From December 24, 2004:

* FCC Permits New Unlicensed UWB Devices*
* ** *The FCC adopted new rules to permit unlicensed wideband devices in 
the 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands. Specifically, the FCC amended its 
rules for general Part 15 unlicensed operations that use wide bandwidths 
but are not classified as UWB devices under its rules. It increased the 
peak power limits and reduced the unwanted emission levels for 3 
frequency bands that were already available for unlicensed operation: 
5925-7250 MHz, 16.2-17.2 GHz, and 23.12-29 GHz, and indicated that 
higher peak power limits in these bands would facilitate wideband 
operations such as short range communications, collision avoidance, 
inventory control and tracking systems. The Commission also amended its 
measurement procedures to permit frequency hopped, swept frequency, and 
gated systems operating within these bands to be measured in their 
normal operating mode.
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[John Scrivner]

Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, 
battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as 
any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless links 
are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage 
in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that 
though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as 
wired ones. I will be "better than wired" reliably here in a year. The 
cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value 
comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear 
winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear.

Scriv


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for 
the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links 
that have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up 
starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing 
two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting 
a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if 
you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, 
then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then 
there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a 
full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that 
your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under 
a Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or 
any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN 
side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a 
feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, 
regardless of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same 
performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one 
direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will 
result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires 
some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in 
one direction.  So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, 
the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd 
argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex 
Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of 
the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible 
performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction 
even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. 
Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This 
is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS 
sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic onl

Re: [WISPA] Strange problem after AP upgrade (at my wits end)

[John Scrivner]

Try different radios and/or system OS. You could run Mikrotik or Star OS 
on the board for little money. If it is not a motherboard issue then I 
think there is something that the OS or radios do not like specific to 
that location.

Scriv


rabbtux rabbtux wrote:


All,

we have a 50' tower that had a soekris4511 board running a modified 
version of pebble linux.  The system worked great for nearly 2 
years.  We upgraded the system to a soekris 4521 and bridged both 
pcmcia interfaces to have a 2 sector site.  The 2 sector system works 
great except for one problem:  it randomly dies every 1-4 days and 
never comes back!  (until a tech goes on site and recycles power)


The lockup symptoms are as folows:
1) blinking link light at switch where eth0 is plugged in.
2) No response from any interface - wired or wireless.
3) System log is set to issue a "mark" line every 10 minutes, but 
nothing is written during this lockup time.


The system has a working & tested watchdog timer.

What has been tried (not in this order):

1) cron job that pings wireless backhaul and does a reboot if no ping 
answer for 10 min. (didn't ever run)


2) Thinking it might be a power problem we replaced power supplies.

3) Not trusting our POE ethernet cable, we used a second Cat5 cable 
for DC power only.  4 wires were used for each line of the DC power, 
which was plugged directly into the motherboard.


4) Added a ground rod & cable to improve tower grounding. (remember 
though, this single sector system worked fine without this added 
grounding)


5) swapped out the 4521 motherboard.

6) created a bench test system.  This was an exact duplicate of the 
tower system without external antennas, run on the bench.


wireless LT -> 2 sector system(backhaul link) - > wireless router -> 
wired laptop


In this test system our test AP runs without any wired connections, as 
it is in the field.  We ran flat out repeated copy scripts for 3-4 
days, and transferred approx 40G at about 3Mb/s (way more that actual 
field conditions!).


Never saw test system lockup, its up time was always correct.  This 
actual 4521 mother board is now on the tower, and we still see the 
problem.


Any suggestions??

Thank you kindly,
Marshall 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

[John Scrivner]

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 List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Error in Press Release

[John Scrivner]

I read your press release titled:

TIA Applauds Introduction of Spectrum-Related Legislation by 
Representatives Inslee, Blackburn, Baldwin, Gillmor and Boucher


I read a line in the release below that is not true. It is this:

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) praises the leadership 
of Representatives Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- sponsors ... for 
their introduction of legislation intended to allow the use of broadcast 
television spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 MHz by unlicensed 
devices, including wireless broadband services.


When I read that this bill was limited to allowing use "between" 608 and 
614 MHz as outlined above I was outraged. This is a mere 6 MHz of 
spectrum. I took that information and decided to rally WISP operators 
against this bill because it was against the language proposed by the 
Senate Commerce Committee bills allowing for all television unused 
channels.  Now we have several WISPs who have written their 
representatives OPPOSING this bill. I had someone finally send me the 
real language of the bill and found it actually says that the bill is 
asking for all unused television channel space with the "exception of" 
608 to 614 MHz. This is a COMPLETELY different meaning than what is 
portrayed in your press release and has caused a great deal of 
misinformation about this bill. PLEASE correct this so others do not 
make the same mistake.

With regrets,
John Scrivner


--
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 Scrivner]

Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info 
for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that 
and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that 
message asking for them to correct the information.

Thanks all and so sorry,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


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

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 

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

[John Scrivner]

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/

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

erators regarding policy, technical, business and other 
issues. We could use your time, money and support. We need more paid 
members if we are to have more influence and credibility in making 
policy that helps our industry.

Best of luck,
John Scrivner



  I want to keep interferance to a minimum, as well as control costs.  
My environment includes lots of desert, and single story buildings.


Lee



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

I sure thought I saw certs once on their site. I guess maybe you could 
call them and ask for the URL to their FCC certs? If you see this then 
passing those along here would sure be nice.

Thanks,
Scriv


Jason Wallace wrote:


John Scrivner:

" Sadly the best Wifi solutions available do not have 100% FCC 
compliance. There are some that do though. Tranzeo is a good example. 
Look at Tranzeo for your Wifi based gear needs. "



Tranzeo is 100% FCC legal?  I've been looking for the certs...

Jason


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

I decided to do some reading on the term "carrier-grade" and have found 
the following to be what is considered a definition in relation to our 
industry. One random source on the web refers to this as,  "A term that 
implies a system that is designed to have increased availability and 
timeliness to meet the requirements of a modern communications network 
element." I saw this quantified on one site as being, a network device 
which has a sustained uptime of over 99.999%. This was as close to a 
quantifiable definition as I have found though it gives no length of 
time or other parameters to use for calculation of this percentage. 
According to Hughes Software Systems in regard to "Carrier-grade" they 
state that equipment can only be considered "Carrier-grade" after 
several years of real field use shows that it is highly available and 
reliable. In the end it is a very subjective term and one I will not use 
in the future unless I can quantify the classification. Basically there 
is no firm definition but I have heard of Alvarion referred to as 
"Carrier-grade" by others and mistakingly assumed it was a clearly 
defined characteristic. My apologies for this error in wording.


With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than 
Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the 
past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some 
Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the 
"only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they 
were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone stating 
another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased 
negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home 
the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our 
entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great 
ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such 
negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical 
WISP operator and Alvarion.


Regarding Waverider, I do not sell above a 768k connection to customers 
on Waverider. Many buy 256k as their connection speed. Waverider is 
currently the least common point of problems in our wireless network. My 
love of Waverider comes from the lack of customer complaints. I do not 
see any speed issues relating to customers not getting what they expect, 
even in heavily utilized sectors. I really should do some testing 
on-site during peak periods though so I can see first hand what my 
customers do who use Waverider for their service. I only see calls 
regarding speed when we have some heavy peer to peer use or other 
factors unrelated to Waverider itself.

Scriv




Dylan Oliver wrote:

How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about 
Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola 
produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - 
so where did they go wrong with Canopy?


Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble 
sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John?


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] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

Steve said:

>You've finally come around to this view John, and you'll discover that 
you have a lot of company in > that view - which isn't (widely) 
represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA.



I did not "finally come around"  Steve. For the record, I wanted VL at 
the time I bought my Trango 4 or 5 years ago. You know why I bought 
Trango instead?


1) VL was still in trial and was not ready. I could not buy it at any price.
2) Trango was ready and it worked reasonably well for the last 4 or 5 
years. (I still like Trango.)

3) VL was going to be way too expensive to be a value for my application.

You know why I made the move to VL? I will tell you, Steve,  it was not 
that I suddenly saw the light like some dumb hick that I sometimes think 
you take me for. I made the move because the price is better now, the 
equipment works and is available now. It gives me the speeds I need at 
the price point I can afford now. It is a good value. Trango is and was 
a good value for me when I used it. I will continue using the Trango I 
have as I migrate my backhauls over to VL over time. This organic 
upgrade will be seamless for the most part. For those who can afford to 
buy the VL from the start then this would be a good move. For me this 
was not an option. Did I mention that IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN I NEEDED 
IT ORIGINALLY.


Alvarion still has some issues as a company. I talked on the phone today 
with Patrick and let him know where I think Alvarion is weak. They have 
no licensed backhaul. This amazes me. Alvarion, a company pushing 
licensed WiMAX has no licensed backhaul product offerings, I mean ZERO.  
How do they expect people to get bandwidth in high interference areas or 
from a metro area into a rural area? Licensed backhaul is a logical 
evolutionary step in building smarter and better "carrier-grade" fixed 
broadband. The most logical and highest reliability would come from 
network   designs with licensed backhauls feeding unlicensed 
distribution segments. This can and does lead to good networks. I 
believe Conxx is built on this premise correct?


Regardless of who you are (all of you) and what size your WISP is we all 
need to be discussing how the next steps of larger Wi-op (WISP Operator) 
business will look and how the early steps can be important to the 
future evolution of a new WISP. What technologies will float to the top? 
What business models will work? How can you design for future proofing 
your network? What should we avoid? We have seen many operators grow to 
be larger and we could be learning much from them. We need to embrace 
them and they should be helping us. Why? If fixed broadband wireless 
grows then it helps all of us. If the bigger operators think they can 
ignore the smaller ones then that is arrogant and backward thinking.


This industry can and will mature. We can all work together for common 
interests and share our information or we can clam up and/or split into 
fragmented groups. At this point in time I see more and more splitting 
and fragmenting of small WISPs, rural WISPs, Metro WISPs, Big WISPs, 
BWSPs, Muniwireless, etc. Feel free to form your cliques but know this. 
We better all be looking at ways of helping each other and finding 
common ground first. The rest of the noise we see hear often means 
nothing to me and is not worthy of my time.

Scriv

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

I disagree. I weighed the performance specs and price and I feel I will 
save money with this platform. If you are saying it is more expensive 
than other platforms then you are right but the performance boost and 
wider coverage per cell make up for much of the higher cost.. I disagree 
that "mainstream" WISPs cannot afford this. I know most of you guys can. 
If you have ANY money behind you or ANY borrowing power at all then 
Alvarion has a good option for offering access to a high performance 
PtoMP backhaul or service to higher end clients. This is a good option. 
With that said I am not saying it is the ONLY option but saying this is 
out of reach of "mainstream" WISPs is not a fair statement. Check the 
pricing and see if this can suit your needs before you assume it cannot.

Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


It is not financially feasible for a mainstream WISP, who is attempting to
serve all types of internet customers to rely on BA for anything but
specialized application.,   It's just too expensive.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:53 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


 


Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and
continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's
   


using
 


our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on other
WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're "niche"
   


and
 


not "mainstream" and there is some division is a real strech. Brad

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


   


With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than
Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the
past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some
Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the
"only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they
were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone stating
another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased
negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home
the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our
entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great
ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such
negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical
WISP operator and Alvarion.
 


Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than "niche" market
WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist.  They have
certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't
make mainstream WISP "last mile" equipment.   I have been expecting to see
them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything.

The ball's in thier court.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
--
   


--
 


-

--
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] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

"Mainstream" WISPs need good backhaul to interconnect tower locations. 
Whatever a WISP uses I am guessing it does not cost much different than 
what I am choosing to use in the application I am using. I feel I made a 
good decision. You do not I made a good choice. I think others could 
benefit from choosing the path I chose. You do not. Let's leave it at that.

Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


Mainstream = affordable residential.

The vast majority of available customers for WISP's are residential, and if
you can make a business case for using any current alvarion product to
provide residential broadband at reasonable prices, I'd love to see it.

Niche WISP's are ones that are only high end customers, or business only,
etc.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


 


I disagree. I weighed the performance specs and price and I feel I will
save money with this platform. If you are saying it is more expensive
than other platforms then you are right but the performance boost and
wider coverage per cell make up for much of the higher cost.. I disagree
that "mainstream" WISPs cannot afford this. I know most of you guys can.
If you have ANY money behind you or ANY borrowing power at all then
Alvarion has a good option for offering access to a high performance
PtoMP backhaul or service to higher end clients. This is a good option.
With that said I am not saying it is the ONLY option but saying this is
out of reach of "mainstream" WISPs is not a fair statement. Check the
pricing and see if this can suit your needs before you assume it cannot.
Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

   


It is not financially feasible for a mainstream WISP, who is attempting
 


to
 


serve all types of internet customers to rely on BA for anything but
specialized application.,   It's just too expensive.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
 


---
   


-
 


-
- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:53 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




 


Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and
continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's


   


using


 


our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on
   


other
 


WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're "niche"


   


and


 


not "mainstream" and there is some division is a real strech. Brad

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




   


With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than
Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the
past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some
Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the
"only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they
were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone
 


stating
 


another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased
negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive
 


home
 


the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our
entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great
ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such
negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical
WISP operator and Alvarion.


 


Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than "niche"
   


market
 


WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist.  They have
certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they
   


don't
 


make mainstream WISP "last mile" equipment.   I have been expecting to
   


see
 


them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything.

The ball's in thier court.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondenc

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[John Scrivner]

I have heard that the current Alvarion VL firmware handles roughly 27 
Mbps aggregate throughput.  The latest Alvarion VL firmware will be out 
next month. Tests are showing 36 Mbps per sector max aggregate 
throughput (upstream + downstream). The real advantage for me will be 
the 30,000 packets per second capability. Estimates are now at roughly 
300 simultaneous phone calls per sector. I want to be able to offer 
phone service in the near future. The higher packet count allows for 
each sector to handle more simultaneous customer sessions even if they 
involve much smaller packets. I have seen sectors brought down to very 
low capacity due to floods of little packets. I am guessing most 
consumer gear maxes out in the 5000 packet per second range. Does anyone 
have any real numbers on this?

Scriv


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What is the max throughput in a PTMP setup?

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

I disagree. I weighed the performance specs and price and I feel I will
save money with this platform. If you are saying it is more expensive
than other platforms then you are right but the performance boost and
wider coverage per cell make up for much of the higher cost.. I disagree
that "mainstream" WISPs cannot afford this. I know most of you guys can.
If you have ANY money behind you or ANY borrowing power at all then
Alvarion has a good option for offering access to a high performance
PtoMP backhaul or service to higher end clients. This is a good option.
With that said I am not saying it is the ONLY option but saying this is
out of reach of "mainstream" WISPs is not a fair statement. Check the
pricing and see if this can suit your needs before you assume it cannot.
Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

   


It is not financially feasible for a mainstream WISP, who is attempting to
serve all types of internet customers to rely on BA for anything but
specialized application.,   It's just too expensive.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:53 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




 


Mark, Come on.The whole BreezeAccess product family was made and
continues to get upgrades for WISP's. There are well over 1,000 WISP's


   


using


 


our gear in the states alone. You won't find many of them here or on other
WISP threads but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Saying we're "niche"


   


and


 


not "mainstream" and there is some division is a real strech. Brad

- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP




   


With that said I still think Alvarion is a far better platform than
Canopy which is strictly my opinion and has no basis in fact. In the
past I have been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some
Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the
"only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they
were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone stating
another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased
negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home
the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our
entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great
ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such
negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical
WISP operator and Alvarion.


 


Until Alvarion makes a product that's viable for more than "niche" market
WISP, the 'division' is simply going to continue to exist.  They have
certain products that WISP's will find useful and valuable, but they don't
make mainstream WISP "last mile" equipment.   I have been expecting to see
them announce something, but so far, I've not seen anything.

The ball's in thier court.


North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIR

Re: [WISPA] Anybody played with this gear?

[John Scrivner]

I just called them. They are asking $732.00 each for these units. They 
are not an integrated antenna and radio as I first thought. They have an 
external N connector on them.


The guy I spoke with said that the FCC certs are pending approval and 
that the unit is being tested for approval now. I was told that 
certification from FCC is expected by end of this month.


They are NOT using the new Ubiquiti cards as I first thought. They have 
their own Atheros based design. I am guessing they have built their own 
mixer /  LO / PA to make these work in 900 as Ubiquiti has done. The 
price is the same for AP or for CPE.


The guy I spoke with on the phone (I did not get his name) told me that 
these units are shipping now.

Scriv



Blair Davis wrote:


Has anybody used the Orion 900MHz gear?

http://www.wirelessinteractive.com/radios/900mhz.html



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's]

[John Scrivner]

Can someone in the Chicago area please serve this guy? If you get him a 
wireless connection please let me know and I will have a press release 
prepared and sent out.

Thanks,
Scriv

PS. If you are in Illinois and have not done so yet, please join the 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] email list server for Illinois specific information. 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/illinois



 Original Message 
Subject:Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business from Crain's
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:18:16 -0500
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]




From Crain’s

Illinois' broadband gap squeezes small business
By Julie Johnsson
April 16, 2006
Even the cheapest DSL service is out of Steve Zaransky's reach.

The line providing high-speed Internet access from AT&T Inc. stops 600 
yards short of his company, Airways Digital Media. Comcast Corp. doesn't 
serve his neighborhood, an industrial corridor on the city's Far Northwest 
Side.
Broadband remains elusive for some Chicagoans living or working in 
industrial areas — as Mr. Zaransky learned when he moved his 
three-employee Web development firm from the West Loop last summer. "I 
just assumed that anywhere in the city, you'd be able to get broadband," 
he says.


That's not the case. Illinois ranks 21st nationally for broadband lines 
per capita, trailing California, Massachusetts and even sparsely populated 
Nevada and Alaska. In a world of instant information, that's a serious 
disadvantage for small business owners like Mr. Zaransky, who can't afford 
the T-1 lines larger companies use to tap into the Internet.


"It creates a struggle to do business here, rather than making it simple. 
It doesn't bode well for economic development," says Janita Tucker, 
executive director of the Peterson Pulaski Business and Industrial 
Council, which represents 22 businesses employing about 2,000 people in 
the industrial corridor including Mr. Zaransky's business. Most of them 
don't have access to digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable modem service, 
she says.


That's ironic in a city that boasts one of the richest fiber networks in 
the country. Illinois had 1.85 million high-speed Internet lines as of 
June 30, the fifth-highest total of any state, according to new Federal 
Communications Commission data. Much of that broadband is clustered in 
downtown Chicago, a major Internet hub.


However, gaps in the network are a problem elsewhere, leaving Illinois 
with one broadband connection for every 6.70 residents, according to an 
analysis by Crain's that compared the FCC tally of broadband lines to 
population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. The District of Columbia and 
Connecticut, with the best coverage nationally, have broadband connections 
for every 4.52 and 4.97 residents, respectively.


"We do have large areas of the city and many suburban areas that don't 
have basic broadband availability," says Scott Goldstein, vice-president 
for policy and planning at the Metropolitan Planning Council. "All sectors 
of the economy are going high-tech, not just large companies. That's where 
Chicago needs to compete."


The problem is a hangover from the 1990s, when Chicago's dominant phone 
and cable companies were slow to upgrade networks that were later acquired 
by AT&T (formerly known as SBC Communications Inc.) and Comcast.


NO RESIDENCES, NO COVERAGE

Philadelphia cable giant Comcast has made cable modem available to about 
99% of homes in its Northern Illinois service area, but it doesn't provide 
service to office parks and industrial areas where there are no 
residences, a spokeswoman says. DSL service, provided by phone companies, 
reached only 77% of Illinois phone customers as of June 30, 2005, 
according to federal data.


In Florida, the state with the widest DSL availability, some 85% of 
customers could hook into the service as of mid-2005. New York's DSL 
network reached 81% of the state.


An AT&T spokesman says 80% of its Illinois customers had access to DSL by 
the end of 2005. He can't say when the company's DSL coverage will 
approach 100%. "Our goal is to get to these areas as soon as we can, and 
we're working at it." He says the network will reach Mr. Zaransky's 
neighborhood this year.


Texas-based AT&T also plans to begin wiring area homes for fiber-optic 
lines capable of providing television programming and ultra-fast Internet 
service later this year.


State and city of Chicago officials acknowledge broadband coverage is a 
problem, but they have been slow to find solutions. The Illinois Broadband 
Task Force, established by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is drawing up plans to 
study service gaps and create an entity to provide broadband in 
underserved areas.




Chicago, meanwhile, is proceeding with plans to establish citywide Wi-Fi 
service. Requests for proposals for the project will be issued later this 
spring, with the first service deployment beginning in 2007, says Hardik 
Bhatt, the city's chief information officer. "It sh

Re: [WISPA] Quick note of hello

[John Scrivner]

Hello Patrick, welcome back.

For some of you folks who are new to this list or wireless, Patrick has 
been a big friend to the fixed broadband wireless industry for many 
years. Patrick formerly held the position of "Chief Evangelist" for 
Alvarion before accepting his promotion to Vice President of Marketing 
some time back. I consider Patrick to be a valuable resource for WISPA 
and our industry and a personal friend to me.


We're glad to see you back.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


Hi all,

 

I just wanted to drop you guys a note that I have re-subscribed after 
being off the list for maybe two years. Hope all is well.


 


Patrick Leary

AVP Marketing

Alvarion, Inc.

o: 650.314.2628

c: 760.580.0080

Vonage: 650.641.1243

Skype: pleary

 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Quick note of hello

[John Scrivner]

Jeff, I read Patrick's post before yours. I am also glad to see you 
here. WISPA has been working hard to gain access to spectrum and better 
regulatory issues for our industry. We have seen some real successes. We 
still have a long way to go but the WISP industry has been making great 
gains toward becoming a well organized industry. We hope all of you can 
help us reach this goal.


Jeff is also a good friend of mine. Jeff and I seem to always end up 
together at trade shows. I owe him several rides as he always seems to 
get stuck being my driver! Sorry about that Jeff.   :-D

Glad you are back, Jeff,
Scriv


Jeff Broadwick wrote:


Ditto.  I hear things are going well here!
 
Jeff
 
 


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106

 



*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Patrick Leary

*Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2006 12:17 PM
*To:* 'WISPA General List'
*Subject:* [WISPA] Quick note of hello

Hi all,

 

I just wanted to drop you guys a note that I have re-subscribed after 
being off the list for maybe two years. Hope all is well.


 


Patrick Leary

AVP Marketing

Alvarion, Inc.

o: 650.314.2628

c: 760.580.0080

Vonage: 650.641.1243

Skype: pleary

 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Universal Service Fund

[John Scrivner]

Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on Universal 
Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for 
input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, 
members or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of 
the House Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help 
them structure legislation toward the re-working on the Universal 
Service Program. Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it 
available to multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in 
broadband as well as telco.


The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the 
government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of 
that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government 
rarely makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we 
need to give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal 
to bring broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas.


To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its 
history, how it works and how it does not work. We need to develop a 
strong strategy for dealing with Universal Service and offer a position 
that legislators can feel good about and that helps show we are serious 
about helping in legislative issues. I welcome feedback from anyone with 
information which can help us develop this position. We need to act soon 
as the legislature is wanting to do something now. Please help us mold 
our future through this important effort. Your thoughts and knowledge 
are needed.


Input from anyone with knowledge of Universal Service would be helpful 
at this time. What we do not need is an argument that we should just 
tell them to make it go away. We know that is what many of you want. In 
lieu of it going away we need to know how it can be made to help us.

Thank you,
Scriv
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISPCON

[John Scrivner]

I am planning to attend.
Scriv


Peter R. wrote:


Is anyone attending ISPCON in Baltimore next month?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Anybody played with this gear?

[John Scrivner]

Sorry to answer my own post but I thought it was needed here. I was 
asked offlist by a list member if I was supporting this product with the 
message I sent below.I need to be clear that I was not promoting this 
product at all. I was simply passing along what I was told to save 
others from making the call to get the same data.

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

I just called them. They are asking $732.00 each for these units. They 
are not an integrated antenna and radio as I first thought. They have 
an external N connector on them.


The guy I spoke with said that the FCC certs are pending approval and 
that the unit is being tested for approval now. I was told that 
certification from FCC is expected by end of this month.


They are NOT using the new Ubiquiti cards as I first thought. They 
have their own Atheros based design. I am guessing they have built 
their own mixer /  LO / PA to make these work in 900 as Ubiquiti has 
done. The price is the same for AP or for CPE.


The guy I spoke with on the phone (I did not get his name) told me 
that these units are shipping now.

Scriv



Blair Davis wrote:


Has anybody used the Orion 900MHz gear?

http://www.wirelessinteractive.com/radios/900mhz.html



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik "Advertisement" Feature

[John Scrivner]

I know this would be a bunch of work but can you either send us some 
screen shots of this in action or possibly give a public address to the 
hotspot side so we can see what this feature looks like in action? I 
would really like to see the ad feature running and I am having trouble 
visualizing exactly what it is doing.

Many thanks,
Scriv


Paul Hendry wrote:


Aha, now I see it. Never use Winbox so missed the option but now see it on
the CLI too. Are there issues with this and pop-up blockers at all?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 April 2006 09:36
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Mikrotik "Advertisement" Feature

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject: [WISPA] The Mikrotik "Advertisement" Feature


 


I have recently been playing with the Hotspot side of Mikrotik which seems
to work well. I had a look through the manual which suggests you should be
able to re-direct people every now and again to advertisements but it
doesn't actually explain how this is done. It looks to be done through the
transparent proxy. Anyone tried this?
   



Yes, it works with the transparent proxy.

Just go to 'IP > HotSpot > User > Profiles > Profile Name >Advertise' in
Winbox.

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: Fw: High Speed Internet in Rural Areas]

[John Scrivner]

Does anyone out there serve rural Carbondale, Illinois? If you do then I 
have a potential client for you. Let me know.

Thanks,
Scriv

begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Re: internet access for Katrina/Rita survivors

[John Scrivner]

Thank you for all you are doing and have done David. I am copying an industry 
list server from the WISPA organization. They have hundreds members and 
affiliated organizations which may be able to help you. I hope this helps. If 
someone out there helps them please share it with the group.
God bless you and your efforts,
John Scrivner


-- Original Message --
From: "David Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Tue, 02 May 2006 14:03:00 -0500

>Dear Mr. Scrivner,
>
>My name is David Maddox and I am an AmeriCorps member volunteering with
>the Louisiana Delta Service Corps, and acting as the Parent Liaison for
>Mayfair Elementary School in Baton Rouge, LA.  The school had been
>closed for years but was re-opened due to the overwhelming influx of
>students displaced to Baton Rouge by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Now
>that the necessary changes have been made to accommodate these students
>within the Baton Rouge School System, Mayfair's sustentation is no
>longer required.
>
>Understanding that many of the families here have not yet decided, or
>have been unable to decide about where they will be making a new life, I
>have been researching Virtual Schools as an option for some of the more
>itinerant families. 
>
>Through the network created by my involvement with the Americorps
>program, I have made contacts with local NPOs who make available to
>hurricane survivors the necessary hardware and software to participate
>in the Virtual Schools program; however, these low income families would
>still need assistance with internet access. 
>
>I am emailing you today in the hopes that you might be able to point me
>in the right direction.  If you are aware of any agency or program that
>might help provide free or discounted internet access please let me
>know.
>
>Thank in advance for your help.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>David Maddox
>Parent Liaison
>Mayfair Elementary
>Louisiana Delta Service Corps
>Parent University 
>Ph. # 225-761-7857
>cell # 225-772-4356
>email [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] 900 MHz Under Attack

[John Scrivner]

There is an effort being perpetuated to try to eliminate or at least 
restrict our ability to use 900 MHz for wireless broadband. We need 
stories of how 900 MHZ is being used today by WISPs, Muini's, etc. to 
bring broadband to the masses where nothing else will do the job. Send 
your stories to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Here is my 900 MHz usage example:

Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc. is a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider) in 
rural Southern Illinois. Our entire business model is based on serving 
broadband to markets where service is either not available or not widely 
available. There are many trees in Southern Illinois. These trees have a 
tendancy to make WiFi and other low-power, higher-frequency wireless 
broadband options very weak for delivery of broadband due to absorption 
of the signal by the trees. This means many people cannot get the signal 
even when in close proximity to a tower location. The only option 
available to WISP operations in these conditions is 900 MHz broadband 
delivery. This unlicensed 900 MHz band is used in 40% of all my rural 
customer connections.


Mt. Vernon. Net was fortunate enough to receive grant funding through 
the USDA Rural Utility Service to provide broadband to customers in the 
small town of Bluford, Illinois. This town of roughly 750 people had no 
other broadband at all. They also had many mature trees all over town. 
The only way to effectively serve this community was with 900 MHz 
Waverider brand equipment. The system is now online and works flawlessly.


The best example of the importance of this 900 MHz system in rural 
broadband delivery was in a the case last year of a young man in Bluford 
who developed Leukemia. He had to have a bone marrow transplant which 
led to his complete isolation from all people to stop any possible 
infection. The transplant left him with no immune system. This young man 
could have easily died. His biggest concern though was finishing school 
with his 2nd grade class. We used the 900 MHz wireless system to deliver 
a virtual classroom connection for this young man. He could pan, tilt 
and zoom a camera from his web browser at home as if he were at school.


900 MHz broadband technology is the "secret sauce" in making stories 
like this possible. It is the ONLY option WISPs have in bringing rural 
broadband online quickly and efficiently when other technologies will 
not do the job.. The unlicensed 900 MHz technology we are using is an 
absolute necessity in making rural broadband options available today in 
all of the United States.

John Scrivner
President
Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Promotional Marketiing Committee membership openings

[John Scrivner]

There is a new list server for this committee which is 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can subscribe to this list by going to 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/Promotion and filling out 
the online subscription form. I know we will all be rewarded by the 
efforts of this committee to help our industry and I applaud those of 
you who agree to help.

Kindest regards,
John Scrivner


George Rogato wrote:


To All WISPA Members

The WISPA Board of Directors, during the March Board of Directors
meeting, created the WISPA Promotional Marketing Committee to promote
it's WISPA Members, WISPA and the wisp industry in general.

During the formation of WISPA there were comments regarding what is
WISPA going to do to help us, the wisps. Some said the question was what
are the wisps going to do to help WISPA.

The answer is together, WISPA and it's member wisps, can help us help
ourselves. One such way is the WISPA Promotional Marketing Committee.
What is needed now is for the member wisps who have experience and
talent in the area of promotion and marketing to help put in motion a
marketing campaign to promote WISPA and it's member wisps.

At this time the Marketing committee has just myself, George Rogato of
OregonFAST.net, and Tom DeReggi of Rapiddsl.net.

The committee will communicate via a dedicated email list and the time
needed to work on the committee shouldn't need much more than a couple
hours a week, if that.

We need some volunteers to get this going.

Email me off list at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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] Re: [TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

[John Scrivner]

Dan Hammill wrote:


John,

Thank you for your sentiments towards hams.
 

I meant what I said though I may have had it wrong after some of the 
replies I am seeing from this group.


Dan  KB5MY said:


if I run legal limit into my 24-foot
dish, aim at the moon on the horizon, and some unlicensed ISP happens to lie
in-between, I guarantee that the ISP will lose, regardless of how much power
he/she may be running.
 

I have been using the list servers here as an opportunity to share my 
thoughts on perspectives and see how best to proceed for everyone's best 
interest. Marlon has done the same. Quite frankly I am surprised that 
the bully tactics you describe would be even put into print. I have 
always thought Hams were basically all above such thinking. I have no 
intentions of turning this into a holy war. I know my place. Thank you 
for pointing it out though with the end of your gun.

Good bye,
John Scrivner

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: [TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz ruleschange

[John Scrivner]

I only commented this to the list so that a record of this bully tactic 
exists. If you cannot see what he was insinuating then that is your 
right to read it however you like. I know what he was trying to say. He 
was saying that if we bitch to the FCC about their wishes to gain access 
to the 2.4 GHz band without Spread Spectrum APC power limitations then 
we all might be the unfortunate recipients of harmful interference when 
they turn up the power and knock us offline while doing legitimate moon 
bounce experiments. Regardless, I am not starting a holy war with Hams. 
Most of them are good guys anyway. This one in particular is a bully and 
I have drawn attention to this. That is my opinion and I shared it. Draw 
your own conclusions as you see fit. I have no intentions of pushing 
this issue any further. To be honest with you I consider most Hams to be 
our friends and allies. This one I believe is a bully though.

Scriv


Brian Webster wrote:


John,
I'm not sure if this guys comments were meant to be that of a 
threatening
nature. If someone is using the moon as a passive reflector, they may very
well be aiming at the horizon with a set of antennas using steerable
tracking gear for their antennas. The idea would be that you start using the
moon like you would a tracking system for a moving satellite. At moon rise
and set you would be aimed at or near the horizon with a lot of power. I'm
just pointing out the technical aspect of this, I'm not on the tower talk
list and did not see the whole thread to get the tone of the conversation.
This type of system is typical for hams who operate either satellite comms
or moon bounce. They do this to allow maximum time for communications. While
it would be possible to intentionally use this to harm WISP's it is also
possible that it could happen by chance.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>


-Original Message-
From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:11 PM
To: Dan Hammill
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [TowerTalk] [WISPA FCC] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz
ruleschange



Dan Hammill wrote:

 


John,

Thank you for your sentiments towards hams.


   


I meant what I said though I may have had it wrong after some of the
replies I am seeing from this group.

Dan  KB5MY said:

 


if I run legal limit into my 24-foot
dish, aim at the moon on the horizon, and some unlicensed ISP happens to
   


lie
 


in-between, I guarantee that the ISP will lose, regardless of how much
   


power
 


he/she may be running.


   


I have been using the list servers here as an opportunity to share my
thoughts on perspectives and see how best to proceed for everyone's best
interest. Marlon has done the same. Quite frankly I am surprised that
the bully tactics you describe would be even put into print. I have
always thought Hams were basically all above such thinking. I have no
intentions of turning this into a holy war. I know my place. Thank you
for pointing it out though with the end of your gun.
Good bye,
John Scrivner

--
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] 3650 equipment

[John Scrivner]

WISPA works to make sure that when government decides they will be 
taking a role in our industry that they do so without harming us. You 
cannot lobby anonymously. You CAN stand and be counted or hide and cower 
under a rock in obscurity. If you are one of the rock dwellers I am sure 
you are not alone. We'll see which group wins out in the end, those who 
stand up and fight for what is right or those who hide and cower in 
obscurity.

Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


Can you blame them?

Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and
from thier customers.

Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more
government involvement in the ISP business.

Right now, I think more and more are thinking that thier ONLY chance of
survival is obscurity.

BTW, tell the FCC that when they stop issuing forms that only work with ONE
program from ONE vendor, they'll have more luck in getting them filled out.



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 


All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s
also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
   


"flaunting
 


the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that
can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



   




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment

[John Scrivner]

It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy 
right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding 
access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than 
licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other 
than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. 
Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all 
for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. 
License auctions create a "land grab" mentality with little to no 
thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen 
this fail time and time again.


The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband 
use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's 
sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with 
registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially 
used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then 
licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station 
though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station 
then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The 
substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either 
prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station 
or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use.


Then the incentive is for operators to build out a network and serve 
customers as quickly as possible to attain licenses as opposed to buying 
large regions and squatting on licenses leaving them unused for years or 
even decades as we see now. If they price it too high then people do not 
buy service from the operator and the operator cannot get the protection 
of a license. Note the operator has the right to serve immediately as an 
unlicensed operator and has an incentive to serve customers as quickly 
as possible to gain license protections. 

I think that the licenses should be contingent upon public good for 
perpetuity. If public good is lost in the future (by an operator who 
over-prices or sells to a mega-corp who does not care) then the license 
could become open again if people request this.  Charge too much, lose 
your license. Sell to megasuck.net, lose your license. Provide crap 
service, lose your license. Note that this does not mean you cannot 
operate there if you lose your license. It just means you lose your 
exclusive license and right to impose interference protection. It means 
competition can move in on you and work toward gaining the license if 
you do not do your job. This puts the power right where it should be, in 
the hands of the people.


In a 50 MHz band (like 3650) with 10 MHz channels imposed you could 
conceivably have up to 5 licenses available for 5 base station in any 
one location. If you are an operator who is building good business 
relationships you might get all 5 licenses in an area. Maybe not. Maybe 
you get 2 or 3 and someone else gets some. The point is that you have 
SOME rights if you do a good job and do not screw the customer.


It is time to stop the lack of rights for those building networks on 
unlicensed bands and stop the squatting on licenses for those with the 
fattest wallets. It is time for the people to be in control of their 
spectrum assets. The public good provisions do that. Why should one 
federal agency get to tell all the people what they can and cannot do 
with one of our country's most valuable assets?


I have a name for this new way of looking at spectrum policy.. I call 
this "Middle Class Spectrum Policy" and I would really like to see us 
all start moving toward this as a group strategy in the future. If we 
attain some control of spectrum under these terms I am reasonably 
certain all future spectrum policy would reflect at least the spirit of 
the policy as outlined above. Do we want to continue to allow policy to 
happen around us or do we want to start building policy that is forward 
thinking enough to empower us all?

John Scrivner

PS. If you are reading this and you have not paid your WISPA dues then 
go to http://signup.wispa.org/ right now and stop letting others pay to 
take care of you in D.C. We need your support!




Matt Liotta wrote:


Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an 
unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. 
I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and 
utility

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 

Re: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy

[John Scrivner]

Replies inline:

Patrick Leary wrote:


I favor substantial use rules and also agree in rejecting squatters rights.
A method of issuing licenses I like is the following:

1. licenses are broken up into regional and local.
 

Why not license by base station? Then a provider cannot ignore 
under-served areas. They must serve the area completely or someone else 
makes a business case and serves the area.  Under the plan I proposed 
the area runs unlicensed if substantial use is not able to be reached. 
No need for license costs or property protection if you cannot make a 
business case to build out to begin with or if a service area has too 
few people to require license protection. Why build layers of 
administrative overhead for the whole country when some areas run fine 
on unlicensed. Let the market dictate where the licenses are needed and 
where they are not. Why should someone be pronounced "ruler of the 
frequency" in a place they do not serve? Set licensing by base station 
and see how many people make the jump from unlicensed to licensed 
delivery of broadband in this country. You will see the whole country 
served effectively with wireless broadband very quickly under my plan. 
Your plan is still requiring more time and money before anything gets 
built. I am surprised Alvarion is not not jumping on my plan. My plan 
could sell much more gear than your plan for sure. I am sure of it.



2. the government sets the price in advance
 

We already own these frequencies. Why pay a big chunk to the government 
for something we already own? This is simply a way to cause services to 
cost more and limit speed of growth. It cracks me up that we have big 
companies crying that they cannot afford to build broadband into rural 
areas without USF but they think it is fine to pay billions for 
frequencies to do the job. I smell a big rat in that game.


It is easy to limit the number of providers who can deliver broadband 
wirelessly if it costs billions to own all the frequencies in advance 
and the precious few megasuck.nets in turn get billions in subsidies 
through USF to build out their network after the fact.  Talk about  
hand-outs. Who is getting the hand-outs from your plan?


Your proposal basically makes the process inaccessible to many 
entrepreneurs and adds overhead cost and slows deployment. I would agree 
that a monthly or yearly fee should be paid to own and maintain a 
license. Of course under my plan you could just run unlicensed if you do 
not feel the need to pay for a license with the rights of property 
protections which can be afforded by government involvement in the 
process. Basically if you want the government to help protect your 
property interest through a license then you should expect to pay the 
government to help protect you. If you do not need protection then you 
can still use the band if nobody else has built it up and licensed it in 
your location



3. competing parties submit proposals
 

How many million proposals would be required to have enough granularity 
for this to work for anyone but megasuck.net to get a license? Nobody 
but a megasuck.net conglomerate would be able to compete. This is just 
another way to do the same crap that has led us to a world of spectrum 
haves and have nots. Patrick, please try to believe for once that anyone 
who runs a broadband company does not need to have $25 million in the 
bank or they should not be in the game. Entrepreneurs need a chance in 
this game. They do not need to have ALL the game by any means but they 
should have a shot at the game. Under your proposal there is no chance 
for a startup to get a license without millions of dollars backing him. 
This does not foster innovation and stimulate new opportunities for anyone.



4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public
 

And who does this? Who gets to say my proposal is better than yours? Why 
not let those who must drink the punch have a say in who is serving it? 
My proposal does this by allowing a group being served to request the 
loss of a license for a holder who is charging too much or delivering 
bad service. They get a say. License holders would not get a license at 
all if the people in the area served decided not to buy from them. Your 
plan is more of the same "government as usual" program where people have 
no real say in their future and local interests do not get a chance to 
build communications for their area. My plan allows local interests to 
have a level field without taking any opportunity away from anyone 
including the big guys. Your plan excludes smaller companies who are not 
well funded from the start. Do not forget that Apple started in a garage.



5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement
 

My plan does this already. In my plan you have to build the network 
first, then you get your license if people buy it and like it.  If you 
cannot get market share under unlicensed then applying for a license is 
not go

[WISPA] This is HUGE!

[John Scrivner]

Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is
much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of
all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband
wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo!
Scriv




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!

[John Scrivner]

The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who 
has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband 
Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US 
home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports 
and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some 
statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the 
exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report 
in some meaningful way.

Scriv



David E. Smith wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:
 

Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much 
bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband 
connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless.
   



Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed.

(It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if
you're interested.)

Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking
about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're
not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has
"wireless" Internet access when that's not quite what they intended.

Here's the question they asked:

 


Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a
dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection,
such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless
connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection?
   



That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what
I'm talking about most of the time.

Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders,
which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid
sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology
is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just
adults, or...)

Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes
it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably "high"
by some unknowable order of magnitude.

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/

Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!

[John Scrivner]

Sorry TomI am going to drive a truck through your remarks here.   :-)

Tom DeReggi wrote:


8% means...

You do not get preferrential treatment in legislation.


8% means that 8% of the people are using our service which means that 
our politicians have to look at how to serve the needs of those 
customers. It is not about us. It is about our customers. That is the 
job of public servants.



You do not get subsidees to foster growth of a startup industry.


Wrong. Grants, loans, etc. are based on needs of CUSTOMERS not of 
providers. USDA does not care if you get broadband to Farmer Dan via a 
string between two tin cans if it works. By the way, I was the first 
broadband in my town, we are not a startup industry any more.



You get taxed equally as telcos and cable companies.


Do you really think tax policy is different if you serve 8% than if you 
serve 1/2%? I assure you if the broadband tax cometh, you will be 
paying, regardless of how many customers you serve.


ISPs have a viable alternative, so LECs no longer need to share their 
networks with ISPs.


 Like AT&T is so open with their network? PLEASE!



8% is a HUGE percentage of market share. I'm not sure we want to take 
credit for that.

At this stage I think it could work against us.


There is only good that can come from people thinking 8% of the US is 
getting their service from us. We have been on the radar for a long 
time. Now it is time to deliver broadband over that radar! (That reminds 
me...where is that 5.4  GHz band!)

:-)
Scriv



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!


The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, 
who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband 
Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US 
home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other 
reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in 
some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned 
about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making 
the report in some meaningful way.

Scriv



David E. Smith wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:

Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless 
is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 
8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed 
broadband wireless.




Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed.

(It's at 
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if

you're interested.)

Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking
about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and 
you're

not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has
"wireless" Internet access when that's not quite what they intended.

Here's the question they asked:



Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a
dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection,
such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless
connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection?



That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what
I'm talking about most of the time.

Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders,
which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid
sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology
is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just
adults, or...)

Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes
it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably "high"
by some unknowable order of magnitude.

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: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com

[John Scrivner]

We were banned from doing business with them because we requested a 
return once. Not kidding.

Scriv


Rudolph Worrell wrote:

Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with 
www.hyperlinktech.com.  They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable 
but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems.


-
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!

[John Scrivner]

For a long time WISP networks / BWI / Muniwireless / whatever name you 
want to give our platforms have been completely ignored as having a real 
impact on broadband delivery in this country. We get very little press 
about what we do and what impact we have had for broadband delivery, 
especially in underserved or unserved market areas. I have a had a big 
fear for a long time that the government would simply regulate us out of 
existence if we did not start getting some actual respectable data out 
there that we exist and that we are really serving broadband to people 
in a big way. The actual numbers are probably wrong but I bet we are 
serving at least 4 million people with fixed wireless broadband. That is 
nothing to sneeze at and certainly could justify a claim that we offer 
the true third pipe of broadband in this country. That is why I am 
excited about this report and I feel it is a good thing for us 
regardless of any errors in reporting. Pew is a respectable source of 
Internet market information so I doubt the errors will ever be given any 
real press and even if they did all it would lead to is more talk about 
the degree of impact we are having in delivering broadband. More talk 
like that is free press for us and is good. I tell people often that I 
really do not care if they are talking good or bad about me as much as I 
care that they are at least talking about me. If you are worthy of 
discussion then you are making things happen.  We made the report, I 
feel that is good for us.

Scriv



Tom DeReggi wrote:


John,

Your responses make sense.

I guess the bigger problem I have is, I jsut do not believe the stats.
I have rarely found that misleading inaccurate information works to 
one's advantage for long, on any topic.

Because eventually the real picture gets disclosed.
I wish WISPs really did have 8% of the market.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!


Sorry TomI am going to drive a truck through your remarks here.   
:-)


Tom DeReggi wrote:


8% means...

You do not get preferrential treatment in legislation.



8% means that 8% of the people are using our service which means that 
our politicians have to look at how to serve the needs of those 
customers. It is not about us. It is about our customers. That is the 
job of public servants.



You do not get subsidees to foster growth of a startup industry.



Wrong. Grants, loans, etc. are based on needs of CUSTOMERS not of 
providers. USDA does not care if you get broadband to Farmer Dan via 
a string between two tin cans if it works. By the way, I was the 
first broadband in my town, we are not a startup industry any more.



You get taxed equally as telcos and cable companies.



Do you really think tax policy is different if you serve 8% than if 
you serve 1/2%? I assure you if the broadband tax cometh, you will be 
paying, regardless of how many customers you serve.


ISPs have a viable alternative, so LECs no longer need to share 
their networks with ISPs.



 Like AT&T is so open with their network? PLEASE!



8% is a HUGE percentage of market share. I'm not sure we want to 
take credit for that.

At this stage I think it could work against us.



There is only good that can come from people thinking 8% of the US is 
getting their service from us. We have been on the radar for a long 
time. Now it is time to deliver broadband over that radar! (That 
reminds me...where is that 5.4  GHz band!)

:-)
Scriv



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!


The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, 
who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless 
Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of 
approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been 
completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is 
nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. 
I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. 
It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way.

Scriv



David E. Smith wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:

Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed 
wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to 
this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are 
delivered via fixed broadband wireless.




Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed.

(It's at 
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if

you're interested.)

Their survey required the responders to know

Re: [WISPA] Returns to Hyperlinktech.com is it possible?

[John Scrivner]

I will pass along these final thoughts I have on the issues I had with 
Hyperlink. First of all I do not unduly burden my vendors and I pay for 
problems that I bring on myself. I also pay for support from vendors 
that I feel is beyond normal pre-sales support. The situation I had with 
them for the one and only purchase I ever made was for a shipment of 12 
- 900 MHz yagis. These units were about 8 feet long and were designed to 
mount on the end to an eave or chimney, etc. The trouble is that they 
were enormous. I was not satisfied with them. I asked for a return /  
restocking fee whatever to send them back. That was denied. I asked for 
a credit towards another purchase. That was denied. Please note that all 
along we were not allowed to speak to a representative at all. This was 
their policy. Emails were rarely responded to without multiple attempts. 
We finally got someone to agree to a credit but when nailed down on the 
terms of the credit we were told that we would no longer be able to buy 
from Hyperlink now or in the future. We were banned from dong business 
with them. It was quite possibly one of the most bizarre experiences I 
have ever had with a seemingly well-known and recognized distributor.



JohnnyO wrote:


*snip* If someone gives refunds, thats a plus that shows they add value.
But not 
giving refunds does not infer wrong doing. *snip*


Tom - it is wrong doing when you ban someone for requesting a refund.
Hell, I've never bought from Hyperlink and from seeing their "ban"
policy with a few of the posts on here, we'll never do business with
them in the future. I guess I am not the only one that takes this point
of view either, so how much $$ did the "ban" on Scriv cost them actually
? :)

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Returns to Hyperlinktech.com is it possible?


Blake,

Its not that I disagree with you, that "it is good business to take care
of 
your customers."
Nor am I defending Hyperlinktech, as we don't have enough business 
experience with them, to have a valid opinion. but...



This isn't retail HomeDepot that we are talking about, this is
distribution. In my 10 years experience previously in the distribution
business, I can 
tell you there are not many companies that give "refunds."

We also found that the companies that couldn't understand why "refunds"
was 
bad business for distributors, usually were the ones that didn't do
enough 
volume to matter wether we lost them.  I'm not saying that I personally
do 
not believe in giving refunds. I also believe its best practice to take
care 
of the customer, in most cases. But that does not change the fact that
most 
dealers do NOT give refunds.


 


Tessco, Talley. Hutton, Electrocomm.
   



They may give refunds, but there significant hassle in getting it, that
in 
most cases will be more costly to the buyer in time than the value of
the 
refund.
They also usually charge a higher profit margin on every sale than the 
smaller distributor that is competing on price, and therefore has more 
margin to justify eating the cost to give the refund.


I bet the price received from Hyperlinktech was significantly less than
that 
the Tesscos or Hutton's would have charged?

When price drops, terms gets tougher.  A distributor must determine
which 
business they want to be in, and they can't be in both successfully. If

in the price market they need to have price policies. Descretion needs
to 
be taken out of the set policies, otherwise its impossible to manage RMA


processes.

There are many reasons strict policies need to be inforced for
Refunds

1. Price constantly falls based on time. And even a week or s odone the
road 
the cost of the product may have dropped.

2. People find something cheaper after the fact.
3. Sales people may have already been paid commissions.
4. If special order product, the vendor ends up getting stuck with the
full 
cost of the product sitting in inventory for a long time, while price
drops 
by the time someone wants the product. Guaranteed to sell the product at
a 
loss as well as tie up cash flow.

5. People often irreputably return other vendor's products. Company 1
has 
stock and can ship today. Company 2 has lower cost.  Company 1 product
gets 
installed. Company 2 product when arrives gets sent back to company 1
for 
refund. Buyer actually makes a profit on the deal, getting a higher
dollar 
refunded than he paid for the gear from company 2. You'd be surprised
how 
often this happened. Sometimes even involving invoice forging and
swapping 
serial number stickers.

6. The easy way to keep EVERYONE happy, is instead to just offer credits
or 
replacements. It keeps everyone honest. If the buyer is really going to
be a 
repeat customer, its just a matter of time before he has another order
that 
he can apply the credit to.


This is standa

[WISPA] Refunds for customers

[John Scrivner]

We give refunds. It is the best advertising you can do for yourself. We 
get customers from word of mouth and from people who come back to us 
after trying some other ISP who they thought might be cheaper and/or 
better only to find they were treated badly. We even have folks come 
back to us for dialup who had cable modem or DSL and said they wanted 
our support and service. I am certain our policy of refunds when 
requested has helped us earn much of this word of mouth and returning 
business.

Scriv


JohnnyO wrote:


Sure do - We credit ALL of our customers without them having to ask for
any downtime over 12hours they experience on our system. If someone is
not happy with our service and ask for a refund for their installation,
we just give it to them, pick up our equipment and leave smiling.

How about you Rudolph ? How do you treat your customer base ? None of
our customers are due to advertisement, they are referrals by word of
mouth. How stupid would it be to give someone a hard time over a few
dollars when our business is driven by word of mouth advertising ?

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rudolph Worrell
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Returns to Hyperlinktech.com is it possible?


Do you offer refunds for your service?


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law

[John Scrivner]

The plan for any reasonable mesh design calls for mounting mesh nodes on 
street light poles with utility company pole attachment agreements and 
right of way access from municipalities. OTARD has nothing to do with that.

Scriv


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

Ever wonder what kind of rat's next the mesh guys are gonna run into 
with this???


roflol  Eat that Earthlink  Should be fun to watch.

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Join WISPA?

[John Scrivner]

There is a Principle Member's list which is made up of WISP operators 
who have paid for Principle Membership. That list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] We 
only have a couple of Associate members so have not made up a list just 
for paid Associate members yet. We are considering other list resources 
for different membership types.

Scriv


Butch Evans wrote:


On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

There is a members only list that is much more structured and isn't 
open to just anyone



Is that list open only to Principal members?  I am only an associate 
member.  Do I qualify for that list?  Inquiring minds...



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[John Scrivner]

Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of 
such a thing. How can it be used to help us?

Thanks,
Scriv



Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new 
Firmware4 supports double VLAN also.
Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second 
integrated radio into it.

I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[John Scrivner]

I understand VLAN. I have just never heard of "double" VLAN before. 
Thanks for the well written explanation of VLAN though. You did a nice job!

:-)
Scriv


Rick Harnish wrote:


Virtual LAN.  Imagine segregating segments of your network across a backhaul
pipe so that they flow together but don't actually see each other.  Managed
switches have the ability to create VLANs per port.  Think of it as a merger
between routing and switching.  Its a pipe or several inside a pipe.  Tried
to be simple here, I'm sure someone else can give you a more technical
description.

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482 Office
260-307-4000 Cell
260-918-4340 VoIP
www.oibw.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of 
such a thing. How can it be used to help us?

Thanks,
Scriv

 

Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new 
Firmware4 supports double VLAN also.
Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second 
integrated radio into it.

I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo.

   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[John Scrivner]

Thanks to all for the double VLAN explanation. That makes perfect sense 
to me now.


Can anyone describe any functional and/or technical differences between 
VLANs and say MPLS or Mikrotik's EoIP? It sounds to me like all three 
are functional equivalents of each other. Please correct me if this is 
an incorrect assumption. I have Googled it so spare me the obvious. I 
want to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,
Scriv


Eric Rogers wrote:


It is also referred as 802.1q tagging... If it supports multiple layers,
you can have a customer VLAN tags within your network VLAN tags.  Just
need your equipment that takes off your tags before it gets to the
customer.

AT&T uses the Cisco 3750 switches to do it at the customer's premises.
Then the customer can have VLAN 10 at one location and VLAN 10 at
another, and it is completely transparent to the end user.

If that made sense.

Eric

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

Google (or Cisco) is your friend

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_
guid
e09186a00801f0f4a.html

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of 
such a thing. How can it be used to help us?

Thanks,
Scriv

 


Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new
Firmware4 supports double VLAN also.
Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second 
integrated radio into it.

I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo.

   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment

[John Scrivner]

It is not a clock issue. All the messages that were sent with old dates 
were already delivered previously. These are duplicate messages.

Scriv


David E. Smith wrote:


Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 


I ogt them too...
   



I peeked at the headers (sorry, that's my schtick) and while the Date:
header said "three weeks ago," they were only sent today. I'm guessing
Patrick just has a computer with a really squirrely clock.

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/

Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc

[John Scrivner]

Marlon,
My apologies. I honestly do not even know what this is. Can you give us 
a 50,000 foot overview of what this is? I guess I missed the call to do 
something about whatever this is. I have been a bit out of touch with 
these issues lately. My apologies.

Scriv


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

Of for God's sake!  Only one response and that's not even from a WISPA 
member


Can I at least get a "looks good to me" response if you guys aren't 
going to take the time to give me some feedback on what to say on this 
issue?


Ken, my 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: "Ken DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John 
Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc



Marlon,

Comments in-line, just where you'd expect to find them.

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



1 a: We believe that there should be multiple tests run at the same 
time but in different areas. Possibly on a rotating basis so that 
each test can be run via different technologies in different 
environments. We believe that any new technologies should be open to 
testing on a non interference basis.




I would leave this alone - let the FCC decide how this aspect of the 
test should be run. I can see value (for example) of two competing 
tests being run in the same area to show how the interference issue 
can be measured and possibly ignored due to lack of any tangible 
problem.



Part of the problem with this whole idea will be the incombants not 
wanting to share.  We also want to see valid data on what happens to 
the incombant. This means that we need to limit the possibilities of 
harmful interference.


At least that's my take on it.



1 b: We believe that the biggest challenge is going to be creating a 
technological and regulatory environment that’s auto correcting. We 
want to see spectrum fully utilized. However, changing technology 
would require constantly changing rule sets if it were to be too 
granular. Too loose and the rules will get abused. We’d like to see 
a balance that sets the rules in such a way that people can 
build/use devices that use any open spectrum that they can find. 
Inefficient radios that don’t keep up with technological advances 
should be encouraged to leave the market at some point though. 
Possibly by setting a certification sunset. Certainly all existing 
devices would be grandfathered, new ones would have to be 
recertified after x years (3 to 5???) though.




I find this to be a dangerous precedent. If full use of spectrum is 
the goal, it seems that the License Exempt "experiment" has done a 
pretty good job of pushing the limits of that goal.



Yeah, we've done well so far.



From my perspective, I would like to see a "loosening" of the rules 
in specific bands that are easily accessible using off the shelf WiFi 
equipment. In addition, I want to see the 6GHz band have the six foot 
antenna rule stricken from the regulation and a reasonable EIRP 
mandated (like 4 watts plus unlimited antenna gain?) so that we can 
start to use a "clean" band to deliver communications services in any 
area that interference would not be a problem is. As a specific 
example, I would guess (no, I haven't confirmed it) that there is 
zero usage of the 6GHz band in my area or if there is it is localized 
for long distance PtP links and anything I would deploy here "on the 
ground" would not affect these PtP links with their very high gain 
antennas.



Those are all good points but not the point of this nprm as I read it.



2: We think that multiple tests should be allowed to run 
simultaneously in many markets around the country.




Absolutely.

3: Tests should span from fallow to highly used spectrum. We believe 
that one of the criteria should be equipment availability. There are 
radios already on the market that will operate in the 2.5 GHz band. 
This should make modifications to the operating software much easier 
and less expensive for at least one phase of the tests. We think 
that all spectrum should be looked at honestly. Important but not 
mission critical cases should be looked at. ie: Radio navigation 
should be off limits, but the local plumber’s VHF channels should 
not. *IF* the plumber detects unusual interference on his band he 
should be able to contact the testing party and first verify the 
interference and secondly make them stop causing

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

[John Scrivner]

It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU 
adjustment  feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your 
firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for 
wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size 
is something that is critical in many instances. I think you will see 
more use of larger packets (requiring higher MTU settings) to add layers 
for security, QoS, packet aggregation,  etc. I would consider this to be 
a entry level feature for any carrier grade wireless platform. Having 
variable MTU sizes as an option costs you nothing but a few minutes of 
your programmer's time. Not having it could cost you customers.


Regarding WISPs and VOIP. Offering VOIP myself is not a big deal for me 
yet. It will be soon enough whether I am offering it or not. My 
customers are starting to demand access to VOIP. They will not give a 
rat's behind about excuses from me that my network was not optimized for 
VOIP. I either do it right and set myself apart from other network 
operators who do not care about QoS for VOIP or I ignore the wishes of 
my customers. I think I would like to build my network to be VOIP ready. 
Just my 2 cents.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be
enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this.


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?

Good discussion by the way.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.


-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 


Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:



   

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [WISPA] BreezeACCESS VL news - 750% VoIP improvement

[John Scrivner]

Can you give more details on the versions that require a license key? 
What will they cost? What features will they have specifically? What is 
FIPS 197? Could this FIPS 197 service allow for service to medical 
facilities also? I would like to be able to approach the hospitals, 
doctor's offices, clinics, etc. and let them know I can build them 
compliant secured wireless offerings for their data over my wireless 
network. Could this do that? What about financial data? Banks?

Thanks,
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


Si I may have mentioned this briefly in passing, but version 4.0 for
BreezeACCESS VL and BreezeACCESS 4900 will be commercially launched in the
U.S. and Canada on July 3rd. Version 4.0 is the most major firmware re-write
ever done on VL and it was specifically created to produce massive VoIP
benefits for those operators wanting to a VoIP play along side of the data.
It also can be used to for major video gains as well. 


With this re-write we enabled VoIP QoS that results in over MOS 4 (toll
quality) voice performance while massively increasing the number of calls to
288 calls per sector (G.711 CODEC). The previous BreezeACCESS VL version had
a MOS of 3.74 and 40 calls per sector. 


This specific feature, called "MAP" (multimedia application prioritization,
also called WLP - wireless link prioritization), will be available in a
license key and only those wanting to do VoIP will need it. Another key that
will be offered with 4.0 is for FIPS 197. Only those needing that will need
to get the key (i.e. those doing federal business). The license key is
already included in BreezeACCESS 4900 versions. All other benefits of 4.0
are part of the free upgrade.

Free features part of the upgrade features include:
- packets per second to over 40,000 pps (compare to another popular 5GHz
product that has a pps limit of 1,800 pps)
- a configurable lost beacon threshold for improved performance in high
interference environments
- automatic channel size selection (CPE side) for auto find of either 10MHz
or 20MHz with 5MHz steps
- simpler and faster best AU mode
- automatic AU TX power shutdown if Ethernet link disconnects triggering CPE
to sync with next best AU
- low priority traffic starvation prevention when demand is high for
priority traffic
- support of 802.3 QinQ VLAN for secured transport of users' VLAN inside
operator's VLANs
- call admission control (dynamic resource allocation protocol - DRAP) with
Alvarion gateways used with the VL (and BreezeMAX) CPEs

The full benefits of the version 4.0 upgrade can be fully realized with all
rev C and rev D hardware versions.

Let us know if you have questions.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces

[John Scrivner]

Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She needs 
our help right away! We need to call these Senators.

Scriv

Hi John and Marlon,

We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The 
Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good bill 
in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on Senator 
Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the white spaces 
to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator DeMint has 
proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction this spectrum - 
a very bad amendment.


So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the folks 
in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask them to:


a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is 
called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006'

and
b) oppose the DeMint "Auction The White Spaces Amendment"

Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below.  I would 
focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint.


Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help!

Thank you,

Frannie



Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004

John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235 

Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644


Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253

Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922

Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344  

Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753

John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244   


George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024

John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841   

Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121   


David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623



Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934 

John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472 

John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742  

Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551

Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553 

Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274  

Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441 

Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224 

Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551  

Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book

[John Scrivner]

Check this out. We net'd an increase in dialup over the last week of 
plus 2 dialup customers. That's right folks. In this day and age in the 
summer time no less. We added more dialup than we turned off. I can't 
believe it but I am not going to turn them away for sure. Dialup still 
pays a bunch of the bills and it is easy. Go figure. head and pops a cold Bud>

:-)
Scriv



There are a bunch of reasons we are 16th in BB penetration - 
geography, people are happy with dial-up,


- Peter


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Talking Point: Broadband Scandal book

[John Scrivner]

If you work with your Muni (many of us do) then it can be your life 
blood in some cases. We do not use local tax dollars but we do use water 
towers, we connect the police departments to cop cars and fire 
departments to each other. Stuff like this IS the promise of Muni BB and 
it is a great way to develop your business into a crucial and valuable 
part of your business and community. Why let others define Muni BB or 
slam it when many of us invented it? In Mt. Vernon, Illinois everyone 
knows me as the guy who brought Muni BB to life. We call it Mt. Vernon. 
Net here and the 1300 people who use our wireless network every day to 
connect to the Internet and each other love it.

Scriv


Mark said:
Muni BB is just a false promise and it's going to hurt us all.

 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces

[John Scrivner]

Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I 
just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access 
to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support the 
Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the DeMint 
Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television white 
spaces. Do it now!


They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to 
your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can 
counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. 
Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state 
does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a just 
reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can 
tactfully express that when asked where you are from.


If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband use 
then you better act now or forever hate trees.  :-)

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She 
needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators.

Scriv

Hi John and Marlon,

We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. The 
Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a good 
bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section based on 
Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to open the 
white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this section. Senator 
DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill which would auction 
this spectrum - a very bad amendment.


So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the 
folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask 
them to:


a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is 
called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006'

and
b) oppose the DeMint "Auction The White Spaces Amendment"

Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below.  I would 
focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint.


Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your help!

Thank you,

Frannie



Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004

John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644   
Trent Lott, Mississippi (202) 224-6253


Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922

Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 
Gordon Smith, Oregon (202) 224-3753   
John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244  
George Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024


John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841  
Jim DeMint, South Carolina (202) 224-6121  
David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623


   
Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472
John F. Kerry, Massachusetts (202)224-2742 
Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota (202)224-2551   
Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553
Bill Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 
Maria Cantwell, Washington (202)224-3441
Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224
Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 
Mark Pryor, Arkansas (202)224-2353


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces

[John Scrivner]

I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called 
these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the 
US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a 
horse to water...

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

Sorry to answer my own post but I thought I would let you all know I 
just called all of them. What are you doing for your own future access 
to Sub 1 GHz spectrum? Call the numbers below, tell them you support 
the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006 and that you are against the 
DeMint Amendment which would call for the auctioning of all television 
white spaces. Do it now!


They will ask where you are from. Some will ask if you have spoken to 
your own Senator. Make sure you call your own Senator first so you can 
counter the question from the Senator staffers who will question you. 
Call these people even though many are in other states. If your state 
does not have a seat on the Commerce Committee then that would be a 
just reason for you to be calling these other state Senators. You can 
tactfully express that when asked where you are from.


If you want the unused television channels for unlicensed broadband 
use then you better act now or forever hate trees.  :-)

Scriv


John Scrivner wrote:

Please read this note from our friend Frannie from Free Press. She 
needs our help right away! We need to call these Senators.

Scriv

Hi John and Marlon,

We have a crucial vote this week in the Senate Commerce Committee. 
The Committee will vote on the telecom bill (S.2686) - it's not a 
good bill in our opinion, but it does include a very good section 
based on Senator Allen and Kerry's bill. It would push the FCC to 
open the white spaces to unlicensed - we want to protect this 
section. Senator DeMint has proposed a bad amendment to the bill 
which would auction this spectrum - a very bad amendment.


So... the markup will begin tomorrow and it would be great if the 
folks in WISPA could call Senators on the Commerce committee and ask 
them to:


a) support the current language in the telecom bill, the section is 
called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or the ''WIN Act of 2006'

and
b) oppose the DeMint "Auction The White Spaces Amendment"

Commerce Committee members names and phone numbers are below.  I 
would focus on members other than Kerry, Allen and DeMint.


Let me know if you have any questions and thanks as always for your 
help!


Thank you,

Frannie



Ted Stevens, Alaska (202) 224-3004

John McCain, Arizona, Chairman (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns, Montana (202) 224-2644   Trent Lott, Mississippi 
(202) 224-6253


Kay Bailey Hutchison,Texas (202) 224-5922

Olympia J. Snowe, Maine (202) 224-5344 Gordon Smith, Oregon 
(202) 224-3753   John Ensign, Nevada (202) 224-6244  George 
Allen, Virginia (202) 224-4024


John Sununu, New Hampshire (202) 224-2841  Jim DeMint, South Carolina 
(202) 224-6121  David Vitter, Louisiana (202) 224-4623


   Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii (202)224-3934John D. 
Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (202)224-6472John F. Kerry, 
Massachusetts (202)224-2742 Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota 
(202)224-2551   Barbara Boxer, California (202)224-3553Bill 
Nelson, Florida (202)224-5274 Maria Cantwell, Washington 
(202)224-3441Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey (202)224-3224
Ben Nelson, Nebraska (202)224-6551 Mark Pryor, Arkansas 
(202)224-2353




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces

[John Scrivner]

Here is the original post along with the list to call on (and a few more 
thoughts from me). If they ask if you called your Illinois Senators then 
you should probably tell them that Illinois does not have any Senators 
on the Commerce Committee last you checked. Then maybe they will 
understand why we are calling Senators from other states.


Last I checked the legislation created by those lucky few Senators in 
the Commerce Committee were supposed to represent the interests of the 
nation over their own constituencies. But I digress. The fact is you are 
one of as many as 5000 WISPs in the US who are at the forefront of 
broadband delivery to the underserved and rural areas where nobody else 
serves. We need good spectrum to serve the 60% of potential customers we 
cannot with the lower power, higher frequency spectrum we have now. TV 
Whitespaces are critical to the future of broadband deployment in this 
country. It is the most important thing our Congress can do to help 
speed access to low cost broadband nationwide today.


Make sure you tell them this at a minimum...You support the Wireless 
Innovation Act (or WIN Act) of 2006 portion of the Telecom Bill and you 
DO NOT support the DeMint Amendment which would force all TV Whitespaces 
to be auctioned.

Thanks,
Scriv


Chadd Thompson wrote:


Scriv,

Any chance that list is still floating around that could be reposted? Or
just let me know who to get a hold of in our wonderful state of IL.

Thanks,
Chadd

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Critical Time for White Spaces

I guess I will answer my own post again. Am I the only guy who called
these Senators after we all put together the list of every member of the
US Senate Commerce Committee and their phone numbers? You can lead a
horse to water...
Scriv


   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] US MikroTik Certification training class St Louis, MO July 30-Aug 3rd.

[John Scrivner]

*** This is a paid
advertisement which has been approved by the WISPA Board of
Directors.***


WISP-Training.com will be doing a 4-day
training session covering Mikrotik's RouterOS software. This
training
session will be held in St.
Louis, MO on
Jul 31-Aug 3. Find out more
at http://www.wisp-router.com/

This class will be an intense
and detailed introduction to most of
the functionality of RouterOS v2.9. It will offer extensive hands on
training
where you get a chance to really work what you’re learning.
By the end of the 4 day
session, students will have built a
fully functional secure network. Students will have the opportunity to
work
with a variety of interface types (both wired and wireless).
Included in the training is a
TCP/IP
primer, which will include such topics such as: 

  How routers work 
  Subnetting and how to subnet a network. 

Following
the TCP/IP primer will be MikroTik 2.9 specific training including the
following topics among others: 

  Mikrotik installation 
  Static Routing 
  Wireless Interface and Networking (including
WDS and NStream) 
  Dynamic Routing (RIP, BGP and OSPF)

  Firewall 
  Hotspot 
  MikroTik Queues 
  Peer to Peer queues 
  PPPoE Server/Client 
  VPN server/client 
  And more!! 

Hands on labs include:

  Set up and configure multiple interfaces 
  Configure the firewall to protect the router 
  Configure the firewall to prevent the spread
(and infection) of recent internet worms 
  Configure NAT and DHCP 
  Set up PPPoE/PPtP 
  Set up a VPN 
  Configure Peer to Peer Queues 
  Set up queues for Bandwidth Management 
  Configure Hotspot 
  Set up an OSPF network 

Who Should Attend:
This training is targeted
toward network administrators,
integrators, managers and others who wish to gain a better
understanding of
routing concepts in general and routing with MikroTik RouterOS
specifically.
Prerequisites:
An understanding of networking
concepts is require and have a
basic understanding about TCP/IP and know what a IP, netmask and
gateway is and
how to configure a computer with this information.
Course Length: 
4 days (Includes LOTS of hands
on training)
Where and When!
The training will be held in St. Louis,
MO on Jul 31-Aug 3 The training will
be
located at the Best Western Kirkwood Inn, Saint Louis.  
Don't miss this opportunity to
attend this class. Seating is
limited, so be sure to sign up now. No cancellations after July 24th
will
be refunded.
MikroTik Certification!
There will be a voluntary
MikroTik certification test at the end
of the training. 
Offers!
Wisp-Router will be offering a
10% discount coupon per student for
any purchase of equipment. Coupon is not valid with any other offer.
Maximum
savings of $200 per coupon, one coupon per order.  Coupon good for one
use
only within 3 months from date of issue. 
MikroTik offers a free level 4
license key to every student. 
IMPORTANT! - If you are
registering more than one person, or
registering for someone other than yourself, please provide the
attendee's name
in the comments section of your order so that we may provide name tags
and
MikroTik certificates in the proper person's name!
REGISTRATION DEADLINE
IS MONDAY, July
24th. REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED AFTER July 24th WILL NOT BE GUARANTEED
TRAINING
MATERIALS or TRAINING MANUALS AND/OR REFRESHMENTS AT THE TRAINING
SESSION.  PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF COURSE IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO
GUARANTEE
COURSE PLACEMENT
Sales
WISP-Router, Inc.
620-231-
x150


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] US MikroTik Certification training class St Louis, MO July 30-Aug 3rd

[John Scrivner]

*** This is a paid
advertisement which has been approved by the WISPA Board of
Directors.***


WISP-Training.com will be doing a 4-day
training session covering Mikrotik's RouterOS software. This
training
session will be held in St.
Louis, MO on
Jul 31-Aug 3. Find out more
at http://www.wisp-router.com/

This class will be an intense
and detailed introduction to most of
the functionality of RouterOS v2.9. It will offer extensive hands on
training
where you get a chance to really work what you’re learning.
By the end of the 4 day
session, students will have built a
fully functional secure network. Students will have the opportunity to
work
with a variety of interface types (both wired and wireless).
Included in the training is a
TCP/IP
primer, which will include such topics such as: 

  How routers work 
  Subnetting and how to subnet a network. 

Following
the TCP/IP primer will be MikroTik 2.9 specific training including the
following topics among others: 

  Mikrotik installation 
  Static Routing 
  Wireless Interface and Networking (including
WDS and NStream) 
  Dynamic Routing (RIP, BGP and OSPF)

  Firewall 
  Hotspot 
  MikroTik Queues 
  Peer to Peer queues 
  PPPoE Server/Client 
  VPN server/client 
  And more!! 

Hands on labs include:

  Set up and configure multiple interfaces 
  Configure the firewall to protect the router 
  Configure the firewall to prevent the spread
(and infection) of recent internet worms 
  Configure NAT and DHCP 
  Set up PPPoE/PPtP 
  Set up a VPN 
  Configure Peer to Peer Queues 
  Set up queues for Bandwidth Management 
  Configure Hotspot 
  Set up an OSPF network 

Who Should Attend:
This training is targeted
toward network administrators,
integrators, managers and others who wish to gain a better
understanding of
routing concepts in general and routing with MikroTik RouterOS
specifically.
Prerequisites:
An understanding of networking
concepts is require and have a
basic understanding about TCP/IP and know what a IP, netmask and
gateway is and
how to configure a computer with this information.
Course Length: 
4 days (Includes LOTS of hands
on training)
Where and When!
The training will be held in St. Louis,
MO on Jul 31-Aug 3 The training will
be
located at the Best Western Kirkwood Inn, Saint Louis.  
Don't miss this opportunity to
attend this class. Seating is
limited, so be sure to sign up now. No cancellations after July 24th
will
be refunded.
MikroTik Certification!
There will be a voluntary
MikroTik certification test at the end
of the training. 
Offers!
Wisp-Router will be offering a
10% discount coupon per student for
any purchase of equipment. Coupon is not valid with any other offer.
Maximum
savings of $200 per coupon, one coupon per order.  Coupon good for one
use
only within 3 months from date of issue. 
MikroTik offers a free level 4
license key to every student. 
IMPORTANT! - If you are
registering more than one person, or
registering for someone other than yourself, please provide the
attendee's name
in the comments section of your order so that we may provide name tags
and
MikroTik certificates in the proper person's name!
REGISTRATION DEADLINE
IS MONDAY, July
24th. REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED AFTER July 24th WILL NOT BE GUARANTEED
TRAINING
MATERIALS or TRAINING MANUALS AND/OR REFRESHMENTS AT THE TRAINING
SESSION.  PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF COURSE IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO
GUARANTEE
COURSE PLACEMENT
Sales
WISP-Router, Inc.
620-231-
x150



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Thanks to Butch Evans

[John Scrivner]

I just wanted to send out my personal thanks to Butch Evans for taking 
the positive step of asking how to advertise on the WISPA lists and then 
actually following through and paying as he did. We have seen many 
attempts by distributors, vendors, etc. to use WISPA resources to their 
advantage in the past and few have asked how they can do so in such a 
way where their message reaches the hundreds of potential customers 
available via WISPA online resources while giving back to the WISP 
industry through paid advertisement. It is the right thing to do and I 
just wanted to say thank you to Butch for doing the right thing. If you 
are someone who sells to WISPs and you want to do the right thing then 
hit me offline at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I will get you the information 
you need to help you reach the readers of the WISPA list servers and 
help us with our mission to help the WISP industry.

All the best,
Scriv

PS. I am sorry for sending the ad out twice on this list. I made a mistake.
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces Wholesale Program

[John Scrivner]

Can you tell us how this network is structured? How many Tropos units 
per backhaul radio are used? What platform is used for backhaul? Is it 
5, 2.4 or 900 for backhaul? How is the performance of this network? 
Anything else you can share is appreciated.

Scriv


Anthony Will wrote:

Im in MN where the city of Chaska has had a large tropos network 
running for a couple years.  About 80% of in home customers have to 
purchase a "wireless modem"  (CB3) to get a stable signal in their home.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

On 7/3/06, *Charles Wu* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

Hi Tom,

The WHOLE PURPOSE of a WiFi Mesh Network Strategy is to AVOID THE
COST OF
THE CPE & TRUCK ROLL

Now -- whether this theory works in practice is a whole nother issue

-Charles

P.S. FWIW - personally, I find the the concept (from an ROI
perspective) of
a service provider WiFi mesh to be a bit far-fetched, but then
again, 10
years ago, I told the founder of half.com  that
you was bonkers, and proceded
to get into the wireless biz =/

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 3:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces
Wholesale Program


The primary difference being that in the Canopy Fixed Wireless you are
including end user CPE. The largest cost to detur take rate when
WISPS make
subs pay for it.

Its likely that one can assume that many of the subscribers will
need to
install outdoor equipment (adding $100-$300 BUCKS), to reliably
connect to
the mesh.  So you could easilly add $1.5 million to the mesh cost
for CPE,
or remove $1.5million from the Fix Wireless plan if you were going to
compare apples to apples.

What Mesh still has on its side is mobility.  The question is what
value
should a WISP put on that. Mobility can be easilly be the reason
to justify
why a muni should support a oublic interest project. (cable and
DSL go to
the home but NOT mobile for teh community to share.).  Mobilty
also allow
Muni type applications, such as to support travelling users
(commerce), or
Mobile government work force.  Mesh also gives Muni bargining
power in the
deployment, as it uses an asset of value that the governement has
to trade
and offer (easements, light poles, and power from them).

In a Fixed Wireless deployment it could easilly be argued that teh
givernemnt has little assets of value to the provider. Its usually
the
independant property owners tht have the preferred assets for signal
distribution.  For example, in my county, I am allowed free access
to city
infrastructure as a requirement that allowed tower building
restrictions to
be passed years ago. But yet I chose to pay for broadcast sites,
because teh

Governement do not own the best sites that are advantageous to me.

Part of my point is that its not jsut the radios costs that are
relevant.

I'm starting to think that the Tropos, use all verticle, use only one
channel all across the network, design may not be to bad an ideas
after all.
If it solves the challenge to get mobility well, and does not work
well for
subs inside their homes, it still allows lots of spectrum for the high
quality Fixed Wireless providers.

Part of the arguement is that its possible that MESH may be the
only way to
get mobilty well. And maybe the answer is to deliver it with the
least
impact on everyone else.

Of course Alvarion mobile products have shown otherwise for
vehichle mobile
solutions.

So what would happen if more Fixed Wireless manufacturers made
Mobile CPEs?
Would it get rid of some of teh need of mesh? Sure mesh gives
person/laptop
mobility, but will any one really use it?  There is a good
arguement that if

usage of hotspots is low in public areas (parks, cafes, etc) it
would be
even lower on the streets and such.  There is still very little
evidence
that communities will get the MESH signal insidet heir home
reliably without

external CPE equipment.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
To: "'WISPA General List'" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] EarthLink Unwires Anaheim, Announces
Wholesale Program


>a whole 49 square feet, eh ?  Real hard.  :)

Some interesting th

[WISPA] Nortel Box for Failover Broadband Connection

[John Scrivner]

Someone had suggested that a Nortel router could be used to provide 
failover between two broadband connections. Can you please help me? We 
bought one of these boxes and now my sysadmin tells me we have no 
ability to use this box because Nortel will not give us access to the 
configuration software or the manual due to this box being end of lifed. 
If you have used the Nortel box then please help us.

Thanks,
Scriv
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Message from Alex Huppenthal

[John Scrivner]

For some reason Alex is having trouble posting to the WISPA General List 
so here is what he was trying to send:


Alex wrote,

I aon't write for this list any longer, but thought I'd drop in some 
thoughts that may be useful to you.  Perhaps useful to those of you who 
are just getting into being and ISP.


I'd like to know what the list members think of 
http://www.freepress.net/content/about


Freepress.net have a site that can fire off an email to your Rep or  
Senator. You select the topic of concern, click a couple of buttons and 
off goes a canned letter  to your Representative or Congress-person.


Several questions come to mind which I’d like you to answer.   First, 
are the issues on FreePress.net  of concern to the Wireless list 
membership? I see at least 2 I’m personally doing something about.  The 
Telcom Act and Net Neutrality.  If Net Neutrality means keeping the 
number and types of Web sites high, then I’m all for it. Is there a good 
reason to limit or block any site? Is the Internet supposed to be 
governed by Free Speech. If you can’t get your message to the world 
because backbone carriers decided that your message will be queued 
behind theirs and there are 3 main carriers (as there are telcos and 
energy companies), is this a matter of free speech? 

IMHO, the Internet should remain open, unfettered by legislation so long 
as there remains a competitive, open environment at all levels. I'm not  
sure it can be legislated, but certainly congress can adopt a  position 
on the subject, and the FCC can establish guidelines.


If you decide you want to keep a level playing field what does that 
mean? Backbone providers are working hard to exclude competition, so 
goes the take-back of DSL circuits, the rising prices of T1 and other 
Telco/Backbone/DSL/webhosting/Conglomerate ‘assets’. Consolidation makes 
money for investors. It doesn’t create incentive for innovation.


So there’s my nutshell for Net Neutrality. Allow consolidation, which in 
turn creates lower competition, which defuses innovation, which reduces 
arguments for more spectrum which reduces competition, and then apply 
new tiered prices for video, audio, text, images, hosting, VoIP, and 
other innovations, which raises revenues for new massive Telco/Cable 
monopolies, which puts capital - read power - back into the hands of the 
companies who in general languished for 50 years in the monopolies, 
content to tell you that your Central Office was going to get Voice 
Mail, Call forward or anything other than dial tone,  in 8-12 years, if 
you are lucky, and don’t make them ‘mad’.


We all need to excite investors. However, innovation is where 
investment needs to go. I see Net Neutrality as a statement of position 
in that respect. Is it a matter of Free Speech? Nope, its a matter of 
Federal Trade Commission snoozing on the job. Its a statement that 
Podcasting, Videocasting, Screencasting, VoIP, and other innovative 
applications need to be treated without taxation or burdens of higher 
fees in tiered pricing. There is currently a model for bandwidth usage 
that accounts for this variance in load, and its been in use for over 8 
years. 

For any of you that were a part of the pre Commercial Internet -  
roughly prior to 1992. You know that there were guidelines and  rules 
about how the Internet could be used. These rules were  enforced by the 
regional network you were going to connect to.  You applied to the 
regional network for access. In Texas we'd  have to get a connection 
from a local University.


As it was I connected via UUCP to a friendly Admin at AT&T and 
registered comsys.com as my domain in 1986. I provided email and news 
exchanges through an SCO Unix box and a couple of slow speed modems.


In those days, peering was something done with dial-up  connections and 
discussions with others - specifically the Dallas Lunch Bunch.


It appears to me today, the Terms of Service / Use that any ISP offers, 
from ourselves (Aspenworks is a small regional ISP) to  Earthlink or 
AOL. The terms of service are now up to the ISP. You  can as an ISP 
declare you are not allowing any ports other than  80 21 25 maybe a 
couple others, and that your service provides a  maximum of 250K bits on 
FTP.


You can declare whatever you like. That's net neutrality.  No  
regulation works and free market rules, with *one* condition.   That 
condition is that small operators, small media producers,  small server 
operators are treated on a level playing field.


Net Neutrality works when the FTC is doing its job. Just like 
innovation works when free enterprise is allowed to flourish in a  
healthy competitive environment.  You can apply whatever billing rule 
you want, so long as there is true competition. Then you have choices 
which likely include the price model you want.


My opinion is that the Internet is at risk from consolidation. In 
energy and telco telcom, is allowed to take place totally unbridled. The 
result is higher e

Re: [WISPA] Wireless Woodstock

[John Scrivner]

I will plan on bringing my drums down I reckon. What about you Larsen? 
You bringing your bass guitar? Any guitar players out there who know how 
to rock-n-roll? When is this shindig? Is there a webpage for it? Let's rock!

:-)
Scriv


Mac Dearman wrote:


Very Good!!

We are gonna have a blowout. I am looking for a live band - - I wonder what
Scriv is doing? - - hey Scriv!

Mac Dearman

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Laura
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless Woodstock

Heck, You know us down here, we are always game for a party. Looking forward
to it.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wireless Woodstock


 


Cliff,

 You, Johnny and Joe will have to travel North (nasty word) of I-10 to
   


get
 


here whereas the whole rest of the world will be traveling South. You know
that Y'all are all special :-)

Mac

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Woodstock

Mac, I would be interested in attending...
How do I get DOWN to Louisiana from where I live? (duh) :)



On 7/12/06 6:18 PM, "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   


We are trying to get a "Wireless Woodstock" reunion out here for Labor
 


Day.
   


It is wide open for anyone to come out, sit down, eat, drink and just
 


enjoy.
   


Bring your fishing pole...etc

All of you ought to try to make down here to Louisiana!!

Mac Dearman

 


--
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] New WISPA Vendor Member

[John Scrivner]

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a new WISPA Vendor
Member to our organization. Optivon  has
paid their dues and has made it official. They want to work with all of
the WISP industry and help support our efforts through WISPA. I am sure
I speak for us all in welcoming them to WISPA. If you have a desire to
offer VOIP for your customers then consider giving Optivon a shot at
your business. After all, they are the first VOIP vendor to actually
build their business plan around working with WISPs like you and
support our association. I will be talking to them for my own network's
VOIP needs. I hope you all do the same. Here is some information about
Optivon:

Optivon is a facilities based
VoIP applications services
provider located in
Tampa, FL
and San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
We provide hosted services to local exchange carriers, wireless
Internet
service providers, and other carriers. 
 
Our hosted services include IP
Centrex/Hosted
PBX, Residential VoIP, IP Trunking and other applications. Through
various
providers, we can offer a very large nationwide local footprint of DID
and toll
free numbers with E911 service. If you prefer, for increased margins,
we can
work with you in helping you operate your own local PSTN connections.
This is
especially attractive for internationally based carriers. We also offer
you
attractive domestic and international termination rates. 
 
Through our CLEC subsidiary in Puerto Rico, we can provide DID origination and
termination.   Our platform is based on a
carrier class tandem softswitch and a Tekelec 6000 (formerly Vocal
Data)
applications service platform, which is located in a "bunker type"
central office facility for increased network reliability.
 
We have a good understanding of
wireless data
networks, having operated one. Among our customers for hosted VoIP
services are
a WISP in Tampa that is expanding into Atlanta and South Florida, another in Connecticut,
and one that has 2,500 radios installed in Puerto
Rico.  We provide service to the
largest telephone
operating company in the World and to small WISP operators.   
 
Different than other providers,
Optivon is
prepared to work with you providing not only the VoIP services, but
also sales
and engineering support to help you succeed.
 
Also, we will not compete
against you.  We only sell our services in the USA
through
carriers.  
 
Please visit our web site at www.optivon.com/us to learn more about our
services or contact Rafael Morales at the following address:
 
Optivon Inc.
Rafael Morales
VP Operations
6304 Benjamin
Rd. Suite 514
Tampa, FL  33634
 
Tel: 
813-600-6090
Email: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 

 



begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Chat List

[John Scrivner]

I have seen some degradation of the content of the WISPA list server of 
late. A little humor and off topic chatter is ok but we probably need to 
improve our signal to noise ratio just a little bit guys please. Let's 
all step up the level of professionalism required to keep the list a 
vital part of our business.


We do have a chat list that is designed to be a place to just chat about 
anything on your mind. You can signup for it by going to 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/chat and then you can tell 
jokes, discuss politics, slam each other's heritage ( not really) and 
whatever else not related to the business of running a WISP or improving 
policy you like as long as it does not turn into a battle royal.


WISPA has been working to gain some vendor membership as well as asking 
other WISPs to join. If this list looks like nothing but a "text bar" 
then we will not attract others to this forum and we need others with 
information and dues that can help us.

Thanks guys,
Scriv

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Field Techs & Non-Standard Installations

[John Scrivner]

Dori,
Please send a copy of MVN's Wireless Subscriber Agreement to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] That address is only paid WISPA Principle Members. I 
want to make it clear to all of you that I am sharing this only as a 
reference of what I am doing. I do not warranty the use of this document 
in any way. I also insist that this document not be given to anyone 
other than WISPA paid members.

Scriv


Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

Can someone post me their install agreements?  If your a WISPA member, 
post it to the members list.


N White wrote:

We charge $85/hour for anything after standard installation. Standard 
installation includes installing and configuring the CPE and any 
customer computers that are present at the time of installation, 
including a installation of a router or switch if necessary. It does 
not include trenches, masts, custom wiring runs (attic, crawlspace, 
etc), or troubleshooting client PC problems.


Nick



KyWiFi LLC wrote:


We are starting to see more and more subscribers need custom
installations such as a vent pipe mount, aerial drop, trenching, etc.
How is everyone paying their sub-contractors when it comes to
non-standard installations? For instance, say you pay $75 to a
sub-contractor for a standard installation but when they arrive
at the job site, the subscriber needs a 10' ditch dug. If the
sub-contractor says he will dig the ditch for $25 do you just
tack this amount on to the subscriber's installation fee and then
pass it along to the sub-contractor or do you add say $10 - $20
to the amount the sub-contractor is going to charge you and then
bill the subscriber the inflated amount which would then have a
profit margin attached? Or, do you have the sub-contractor bill
the subscriber separately for digging the ditch or whatever else
they want/need done at their premises? In other words, do you
try to make a profit on the additional work performed by the
sub-contractor which falls outside a standard installation?


Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder
KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky
"Your Hometown Broadband Provider"
http://www.KyWiFi.com
Call Us Today: 859.274.4033
===
$29.99 DSL High Speed Internet
$14.99 Home Phone Service
$19.99 All Digital Satellite TV
- No Phone Line Required for DSL
- FREE Activation & Equipment
- Affordable Upfront Pricing
- Locally Owned & Operated
- We Also Service Most Rural Areas
===
  





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 2150-2162 AND 2500-2690

[John Scrivner]

From what I read all they did was grant the WCAI the right to write a 
longer statement than is normally allowed. This is not an award of any 
significance that I can see..

Scriv


Peter R. wrote:

AMENDMENT OF PARTS 1, 21, 73, 74 AND 101 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO 
FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF FIXED AND MOBILE BROADBAND ACCESS, 
EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER ADVANCED SERVICES IN THE 2150-2162 AND 2500-2690

MHZ BANDS.   Granted the Wireless Communications Association
International, Inc.'s request. (Dkt No.  03-66). Action by:  Deputy 
Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted:
07/31/2006 by ORDER. (DA No. 06-1567).  WTB 






--
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 Scrivner]

http://www.panduit.com/

Find your nearest dealer or become a dealer. They train you for free. 
Less than $500 worth of tools and you can terminate fiber forever with 
low-cost easy to use parts. Why pay someone to come and put ends on your 
fiber when you can do it yourself? I figured it out which means anyone can.

:-)
Scriv


Brad Belton wrote:


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/

Re: [WISPA] Outgrowing your AP

[John Scrivner]

I am assuming 2.4 GHz WiFi access? If that is the case then use two 90 
degree sectors overlooking the same coverage area. I would try to place 
some vertical or horizontal displacement between the antennas if at all 
possible to eliminate any noise introduction between APs. (This 
displacement is not 100% needed if not possible to physically setup but 
helps provide better SNR for your clients). Run the two APs on different 
channels.  In 2.4 DSSS you can have up to 3 non-overlapping channels and 
hence up to 3 colocated APs in the same location. (Channels 1, 6 and 11) 
With FHSS like Alvarion you can have up to 11 APs in the same physical 
area without interference though each has only 2 or 3 meg capacity. If 
you are using 900 MHz or 5 GHz then let me know and I will discuss usage 
options in those bands.

Scriv


Ryan Spott wrote:


I am quickly outgrowing my current AP.

I currently have an AP on the side of a mountain with all of my 
clients within 1 90* sector.


How do I add an AP without blasting myself away with my own signal?

Do I put 2 APs up there with 45* sectors on them?

Do I put 2 APs up there with 90* sectors and use 2 different channels?

Any input on this would be useful.

thanks,

ryan


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Optivon & Sago

[John Scrivner]

Peter,
Thank you for passing along this success story for Optivon. They 
recently joined WISPA as a vendor member. I am glad to see that their 
belief in partnering with WISPs to use WISP platforms for delivery of 
VOIP is baring fruit. Thanks again Peter.

John Scrivner



Peter R. wrote:


Optivon, Sago Partner to Deliver Hosted Telephony Services
Posted on: 08/03/2006

Hosted telephony services provider Optivon Inc. recently announced its 
multi-year outsourcing agreement with Sago Networks, which coincides 
with its North American expansion and focus on the carrier channel.


Optivon will provide hosted telephony services to Sago, including IP 
Trunking, IP Telephony – residential and business, IP Centrex/PBX 
Hosting, CTI informal call center, unified communications, local and 
long-distance telephone service, billing services, backroom operations 
services, as well as other hosted applications that Optivon will 
periodically add to the its suite of services, the company said.


Sago will bundle Optivon services with other Sago services and will be 
delivering the IP-based voice services over its private microwave and 
fiber circuits to the customer premises. The company said it will not 
be using the public Internet to access the customers and will be able 
to guarantee optimal quality of service.


“Quality of service is our foremost concern”, said Miller Cooper, 
president of Sago Networks. “Therefore, after an extensive national 
evaluation process we selected to team up with Optivon to launch our 
voice services.”


http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/68h3151256.html

Sago would be a WISP in Tampa and Miami.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884
http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill to encourage high speed internet access in rural areas]

[John Scrivner]

This is the US Senator in my district in Illinois. It looks like he has 
been reading my emails maybe. :-) At least he is getting parts of what I 
have been saying.

Scriv


*DURBIN INTRODUCES BILL TO ENCOURAGE HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS IN RURAL 
AREAS *


Friday, August 4, 2006

[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) says a national policy 
is needed to accelerate the deployment of broadband internet service to 
rural areas so that every American can have high-speed internet access 
no matter where they live. Today, Durbin introduced legislation, the 
Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006, to encourage the rapid 
deployment of high-quality, affordable broadband internet service, 
especially in rural areas.


“Broadband is an essential component of our lives, at work and at home. 
It has become an essential service like water, gas and electricity. Our 
homes and businesses need affordable access to high speed internet 
connections, in the same way our homes and businesses need traditional 
utility services,” said Durbin. “Yet, for too many people living in 
small communities today, broadband access is still not a reality. When I 
travel in downstate Illinois, people tell me that they cannot wait to 
have broadband service, but that there is no service available to them 
right now. My bill will change that.”


Two recent reports -- one issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce and 
the other by the U.S. Department of Agriculture – found that rural and 
farm households have access to broadband internet at approximately half 
the level of all U.S. households nationwide. Another respected research 
organization, the Pew Internet and American Life Project, found similar 
results. In its 2006 report, Pew found that only 18% of rural adults 
reported a home broadband connection, compared to 31% of urban adults. 
All of these studies point to a consistent conclusion: Americans living 
in urban areas are almost twice as likely to have home broadband access 
as do their rural counterparts.


Durbin said broadband is critical to community and economic development, 
as it encourages investment, creates jobs, improves productivity, 
fosters innovation, and increases consumer benefits in every corner of 
our nation. A recent study found that adoption of current generation 
broadband would increase the gross domestic product by $179.7 billion, 
while adding approximately 61,000 jobs per year over the two decades. 
The study also projected 1.2 million jobs could be created if next 
generation broadband technology were rapidly deployed.


“We need to close the digital divide, ensuring that rural Americans are 
not left behind in the 21st Century’s digital economy,” Durbin noted. 
“Whether it is through telephone wire, cable, fiber, satellite, wireless 
or any other medium, we need every existing and future broadband service 
provider to step up to the national challenge.”


Durbin said his bill includes four major provisions. Each is designed to 
focus on identifying obstacles that hinder broadband deployment in rural 
America today, and to find innovative solutions to address those concerns.


Creates Broadband Trust Fund: creates a new federal program specifically 
targeted at assisting individuals, businesses and co-ops working at the 
earliest stages to bring broadband to their communities. Eligible 
entities include nonprofits, academic institutions, local governments 
and commercial companies that work to identify broadband access needs in 
unserved areas of the country. Projects to be funded through this new 
program will include feasibility studies, mapping, economic analysis, 
and other activities done to determine the reasons for the current lack 
of service, and the scale, scope, and type of broadband services most 
suitable for the particular unserved area.


Reforms USDA Rural Broadband Program: the current USDA broadband loan 
program provides below-market rate loans and loan guarantees for the 
construction and improvement of broadband facilities and equipment in 
rural areas. This program expires in 2007. Durbin’s bill does three 
things with regard to the broadband loan program -- extends the life of 
the program for another five years until 2012; refocuses the program 
solely on rural areas where it is most needed; and establishes a grant 
program to be administered by the same USDA office that currently runs 
the rural broadband loan program.


Wireless Broadband Spectrum: requires the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) to make new spectrum available for wireless broadband 
services in rural areas as soon as practicable. The bill also requires 
the FCC to evaluate its spectrum auction plans and to divide some of the 
frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so that regional and 
rural wireless companies can compete in the bidding process. Making 
additional spectrum available holds tremendous potential for wireless 
broadband to be deployed in rural areas, especially in large 

[WISPA] What can broadband do for us?

[John Scrivner]

I can see why even those of us who deliver broadband may at times wonder 
how important broadband actually is for productivity and other impacts 
to society over standard dialup Internet service. Here are some of my 
thoughts about it.


Maybe if we can create virtual home offices over broadband then folks 
can work from home in some cases. I can see moms or dads who want to 
stay home but also need a job. They could do this, earn extra money and 
compete better against some of those over-seas jobs where work is 
outsourced. I believe I read something about Jetblue doing this with 
call center functions hiring morman moms in Utah to act as their virtual 
call center for all order processing, customer service, etc..


Building virtual call centers is a new industry opportunity in itself if 
broadband can be utilized and heavily available. I am sure many of you 
are saying that broadband is not a requirement to do this but certainly 
the PBX capability of VOIP requires broadband. Virtual office 
environments could help us save money by eliminating or reducing fuel 
costs. Virtual meetings require only some type of shared computer 
whiteboard space and audio / video conferencing to allow for complete 
virtualized meeting capability. I could have used a virtual office 
environment today which would have saved me 4 hours of drive to to St. 
Louis and back again. Not to mention the fuel and vehicle maintenance 
cost related to a 4 hour drive. Maybe companies would be able to expand 
more readily if they had less transportation costs by utilizing 
broadband. I am not saying you guys should all buy into this concept  or 
that I am even sure what the actual target job count increases could be 
but I am willing to bet that some economic and even job count advantages 
would be gained by more access to broadband.


I believe that access to Broadband can, and usually does, produce a good 
net result for our society. Here is an example. In Bluford, Illinois Mt. 
Vernon. Net, Inc. received a grant to build 900 MHz broadband wireless 
Internet access through the USDA. We built a highly available broadband 
network in this small community of about 750 people. One day the grade 
school called me with a problem. They had a 7 year old student who had 
become stricken with leukemia. As a result the child had to have a bone 
marrow transplant. This required him to be 100% isolated in his home 
from any human contact. One of the things he was most worried about, 
even though he was facing possibly death from the disease, was that he 
did not want to be held back a year in school. He wanted to stay with 
his class. The school asked us if we could help. We used grant funds to 
purchase an IP camera with pan, tilt, zoom capability. We installed 
wireless into the kids home. We setup the camera in his classroom. He 
finished the year over his broadband connection by virtually attending 
class every day. This boy finished with his class. He is now well and 
back to school. He was not held back a year. How important was broadband 
to this rural child? How many other unforeseen advantages will we see 
when more access to broadband becomes part of our society?

Scriv


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

Can someone explain to me how having broadband (instead of dial-up 
internet that EVERYONE can get) is going to create 61,000 jobs per 
year for the next 20 years? If it will create jobs from people doing 
more online, then it will decrease jobs from the brick and mortar 
businesses going out of business. Am I missing something?


Travis
Microserv

John Scrivner wrote:

This is the US Senator in my district in Illinois. It looks like he 
has been reading my emails maybe. :-) At least he is getting parts of 
what I have been saying.

Scriv


*DURBIN INTRODUCES BILL TO ENCOURAGE HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS IN 
RURAL AREAS *


Friday, August 4, 2006

[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) says a national 
policy is needed to accelerate the deployment of broadband internet 
service to rural areas so that every American can have high-speed 
internet access no matter where they live. Today, Durbin introduced 
legislation, the Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006, to 
encourage the rapid deployment of high-quality, affordable broadband 
internet service, especially in rural areas.


“Broadband is an essential component of our lives, at work and at 
home. It has become an essential service like water, gas and 
electricity. Our homes and businesses need affordable access to high 
speed internet connections, in the same way our homes and businesses 
need traditional utility services,” said Durbin. “Yet, for too many 
people living in small communities today, broadband access is still 
not a reality. When I travel in downstate Illinois, people tell me 
that they cannot wait to have broadband service, but that there is no 
service available to them right now. My bill will change that.”


Two recent reports -- one issued by the U.S

[WISPA] Another Attaboy

[John Scrivner]

Nice job on the website Matt Larsen. You rock man! Especially when you 
are playing bass guitar!

:-)
Scriv
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
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: Durbin introduces bill to encourage high speed internet access in rural areas]

[John Scrivner]

Replies below:

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


I'm not nearly as impressed with this as you are John.


I never described this with the word impressed. I am never impressed 
that easily!  :-)




Money to study the issue AND a task force?  To study an issue that the 
senator has already laid out?  That the fcc's broadband task force AND 
spectrum policy force have studied to death?  bull.


I think part of this is to help the Connect SI initiative in Durbin's 
district of which I am a supporting member. It is a group dedicated to 
analyzing the availability of broadband, developing plans to build more 
broadband availability, build a common peering facility in the region 
and ways to use it to positively impact the economy in Southern 
Illinois. Sadly the WISPs walked out before anyone even had a chance to 
see what was on the table. This is a good deal for us if people just 
try. That is too much to ask many WISPs though it seems. I am the only 
WISP in the group. I am also the only small company who would donate 
time and money to the effort. If people want to see the government do 
positive things then they have to be part of the effort. Telling the 
government to buzz off does not work.




It's an election year scam.


Nice of you to sum up the hundreds of hours I have committed to state 
level broadband initiatives as an election year scam. If this goes the 
way I want then my service area will be color coded by signal 
availability down to the quarter-section level on the plat book and I 
will have access to every state and federal program for broadband 
available. I do not lobby for programs to be created but I do tell the 
politicians what I need to bring broadband to rural areas when they ask 
e and a good part of what Durbin is stating has to do with things me and 
others have asked him to do to help.




Naturally, the devil is always in the details.  I'm REALLY against the 
study crap, it's totally redundant.  But the grants and auction reform 
may be nice.  Have to see what they really put together.


In case you do not remember t has been me for a long time saying that 
too much money is going to loans and not enough to grants. This is being 
addressed here unless he drops the ball.




I had such high hopes for USF reform, but that's not only not gotten 
better, it's gonna be worse for us.  And it looks like the TV band 
issue is either dead of wrapped up in junk that'll make it worthless too.


What is your source of information on the TV bands? I have not received 
a single negative message in regard to the TV reform issues. If you want 
some USF funds then signup and get a SPIN number. Ask your local school 
to help you. They can set you up in about an hour. You can collect some 
USF now.

Scriv



It always seems to go back to the government supporting the people 
that live off of it first and those of us that feed it last.

Getting cynical in my old age.
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Frannie Wellings" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill to encourage high speed 
internet access in rural areas]




This is the US Senator in my district in Illinois. It looks like he has
been reading my emails maybe. :-) At least he is getting parts of what I
have been saying.
Scriv


*DURBIN INTRODUCES BILL TO ENCOURAGE HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS IN RURAL
AREAS *

Friday, August 4, 2006

[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) says a national policy
is needed to accelerate the deployment of broadband internet service to
rural areas so that every American can have high-speed internet access
no matter where they live. Today, Durbin introduced legislation, the
Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006, to encourage the rapid
deployment of high-quality, affordable broadband internet service,
especially in rural areas.

“Broadband is an essential component of our lives, at work and at home.
It has become an essential service like water, gas and electricity. Our
homes and businesses need affordable access to high speed internet
connections, in the same way our homes and businesses need traditional
utility services,” said Durbin. “Yet, for too many people living in
small communities today, broadband access is still not a reality. When I
travel in downstate Illinois, people tell me that they cannot wait to
have broadband service, but that there is no service available to them
right now. My bill will change that.”

Two recent reports -- one issued by the U.S. Department of 

Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill toencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]

[John Scrivner]

Let me be clear. I would rather the government stay out of broadband 
altogether. I honestly mean that. I think it is a shame that our 
government gets involved in as many things involving broadband as they 
do. The trouble is that they will not stay out of our business. So the 
next thing we have to decide is whether we just let them blindly 
regulate, tax and screw up the system or if we take an active role in 
making the system work for us if it is going to be working for someone. 
I hope that makes sense. It is honestly how I feel and is why I am as 
active in state and federal level issues as I am.  Think of it this way, 
there will be grants for broadband over the next year, would you like it 
or would you rather other people get it? Somebody will be getting that 
money.


Most of my efforts have to do with providing tax breaks and other 
incentives to smaller broadband companies to offer service in harder to 
reach areas. I am also part of a few public / private partnering groups 
who are trying to improve economic opportunity in our region by using 
broadband as a catalyst. Maybe it will work or maybe it will not. The 
one thing I can tell you though is that we are not creating new taxes. 
We are using existing programs and our own money to try to make the 
outlook for broadband and our economy better in our region (Southern 
Illinois).

Scriv



David Sovereen wrote:


Since when do the people on this list support taxation, waste, and
government subsidies?  Why should the burden of providing high-speed
Internet to people in underserved (typically rural) areas fall on the
shoulders of taxpayers?  I don't want my taxes to pay to expand your network
or for Joe User to get your service.

If people want services, they should live in a city.  If they want to live
in rural areas, they should do so with the understanding that services
(water, sewer, EMS, schools, cable, high-speed Internet, just about anything
and everything) are harder to come by and sometimes more expensive.  No one
makes people live in the country.  People choose to on their own, and they
should take responsibility for the costs and/or lack of services associated
with that decision.

Just my own 2 cents.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: "Chadd Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill
toencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]


 


IMO they need to start giving money to the end users to pay for hookup and
installation. Stop paying to expand WISP's networks and give the money
   


where
 


it is needed, if you want a bigger network pay for it out of your own
pocket. In IL I doubt you could drive from Chicago to St.Louis and not be
able to hook up to a WISP.


Give money to the people who need to put up a 45ft tower to get access.

Thanks,
Chadd

   


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:54 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill to
encouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]


Don't forget the 3rd great lie..."I'm from the government and I'm
here to help
you"

:-)


Jeff Broadwick
ImageStream
800-813-5123 x106
 


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 8/7/2006

--
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/