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

[John Thomas]

We kind of got sucked into this. We have been working with Cisco as a 
muni provider and were offered the Mesh training, which was good. A City 
IT manager found out about the mesh and wanted it-before it was even 
available-which wasn't so good. We could either install it and make some 
money or walk away and not make money. Based on the data sheets, I had 
high hopes, now that reality has set in, I am disappointed. I understand 
why Ciscos pricing is higher-they bought Airespace and need to get their 
investment back. That doesn't justify the fact the their gear is 3-4 x 
what the competitors is. We are dealing with cities, and most of them 
have a Catalyst 6500 in the back room. They tend to standardize on Cisco 
and are willing to pay the price.


Dos airmatrix have a dual radio mesh box? I just looked and the mesh 
boxes seem to be single radio 2.4 only.


John

Jeffrey Thomas wrote:

Yay branding.

Actually my commpany is certified on cisco mesh. Which doesn't mean I would
sell it or recommend it. I actually tell most customers to consider lower
Cost options because there are so few real differentiators in mesh products.

1. Its far too overpriced ( retail of 4k per unit makes a 50 unit mesh a
240k project when compared to say, airmatrix which would run the operator
Close to 50k. So is one product is 4x greater cost than the other, then
There is something really screwy going on.


-jb

 



On 4/25/06 7:10 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

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

John




-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Why not just buy the cards, boards, antennas and make a few yourself?

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

Then there are companies like airmatrix that charge less than 1k per
node.
The key with mesh is density, and many mesh startup's fail because they
Underbuild their networks.

-

Jeff



On 4/24/06 7:53 AM, "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

I don't know what equipment they are using, but Cisco AP1500's (mesh)


are
  

abnout $3700 each and Cisco recommends 18-20 per square mile. Thats


$74,000
  

for the boxes plus antennas, mounts, POE and install.

John




-Original Message-
From: chris cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 07:26 AM
To: ''WISPA General List''
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

$173K per mile build out cost?  Somebody just bought a new boat..

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

On
  

Behalf Of George
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

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

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

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



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date:
  

4/14/2006
  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




  



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] Who is Open Range Communications Inc.?

[John Thomas]

It looks like they want Nevada too...

http://fastads.swiftnews.com/indi/?s=tcan&ui=lh&a=850526

John

Chad Halsted wrote:

And Arkansas...

This is was posted in www.ardemgaz.com (Arkansas Democrat Gazette) today
under the "Notices" section of the paper.  You may want to check your
paper today.



LEGAL NOTICE 
OPEN RANGE COMMUNICATIONS INC. 
We are a prospective applicant under the Rural Broadband Access Loan and

Loan Guarantee Program being administered by the Rural Development,
Utilities Programs (RDUP), United States Department of Agriculture. We
are required, as a prospective applicant to announce our intent to
provide broadband services (200 kilobits upstream and downstream) in the
State of Arkansas in the following communities: 
Arkadelphia, Batesville, Bentonville, Blytheville, Bryant, Cabot,

DeQueen, Dumas, East End, Greenwood, Harrison, Heber Springs, Hope, Hot
Springs Village, Lowell, Magnolia, Marion, Monticello, Morrilton,
Stuttgart, Van Buren, Waynne 
Incumbent broadband service providers have 30 days from the date of this

Legal Notice to inform RDUP if they are currently providing broadband
service in these areas or if they have a commitment to provide service
in these areas. Incumbent broadband service providers should submit to
RDUP, on a form prescribed by RDUP, the number of residential customers
receiving broadband service in the proposed service area, the rates of
data transmission, and the cost of each level of service or proof of
commitment to provide service in the proposed service area. A map should
also be provided showing the boundaries of your service area in relation
to the communities above. 
A Legal Notice Response Form can be obtained from RDUP's website at
www.usda.gov/rus/telecom. 
37055620f 
[37055620]


 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] Who is Open Range Communications Inc.?

Interesting.  I guess that the Form 477 doesn't count for this?  Many of

those cities (most???) in Washington are already well covered!

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: "KyWiFi LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: [WISP] Who is Open Range Communications Inc.?


  

Anyone heard of Open Range Communications Inc.?
They have applied for RUS grant money in numerous cities
throughout the country. Below are a few links to their notices
that I have found however, based on search engine results,
it appears as though they have also applied for RUS funds in
Kentucky, Florida and Virginia as well. I know that there are
a couple cities in our coverage area that they have applied for
RUS money to construct their own facilities in so I'll be filing
the necessary paperwork with RDUP in hopes that their
application for those two areas is declined. I am unable to locate
where they are based or their contact information. I searched
bbb.org and dnb.com but they are not registered with either of
these so I'm thinking they may be a start-up company.

There are quite a few cities listed in each of their state notices
below so if you are operating in any of these states, you'll want
to click the applicable link(s) I've provided below to see if they
are trying to invade your turf too. The last thing we as WISP's
need is for RUS money to be given out to someone who is
attempting to compete with one of us in an area that already
has broadband. We need to each do our part and file the
necessary form with RDUP so they don't give money away
for areas that already have broadband available whether the
area is covered by a WISP, CLEC or ILEC.

North Carolina:
http://www.ncpress.com/2x2Network/06Apr24OpenRange.pdf

South Carolina:
http://display.independentmail.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=395985

Maine:



http://me.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNotice.asp?Page=PublicNotice&AdId=91
346
  

Colorado:
http://tinyurl.com/g99rl

Connecticut:



http://ct.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNotice.asp?Page=PublicNotice&AdId=93
998
  

Idaho:
http://www.nwmarket.com/index.php?cmd=browse&cat=Personals&code=018
http://www.mountainhomenews.com/classifieds#Miscellaneous

Nevada:
http://fastads.swiftnews.com/indi/?s=tcan&ui=tb&a=850526

Rhode Island:
http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/include.pl/classifieds/legals.htm

Vermont:
http://tinyurl.com/ghruo

Iowa:
http://www.waarc.org/waarc_1_003.htm

Georgia:
http://www.earlycountynews.com/ROP/large/Misc%2Dopenrange%2Ehtm

Texas:
http://www.fortstocktonpioneer.com/classifieds/?loc=detail&main=LEGALS

Kentucky:



Sh

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

[John Thomas]

It seems like it is time to bill by the packet.
Or at least by groups of packets as in 2 Gigs for $39.
Many clients don;t like this kind of billing, but it is likely the only 
way you can do anything about IPTV.


If you have sold someone a 384k unmetered connection, and they decide to 
actually use it, how can you justify changing the rules?


John


George Rogato wrote:
While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the rules 
of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say you 
sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no ISP 
has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a small 
percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or had in 
mind that this type of usage would be common place when he first sold 
his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if we 
all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video 
have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to 
both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(AT&T, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are "allowed" to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from crossing 
at all unless the backbone providers "approve". This, to me, is 
undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free country. 
That is why I support and have joined the coalition to "Save the 
Internet".


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet business, 
I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website 

2. Do your own additional research on "Net Neutrality", the "First 
Amendment of the Internet" - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of "Net Neutrality"

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to 
save the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support 
your position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, 
six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort to 
keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Save the Internet (Net Neutrality)

[John Thomas]

If Google wants to be faster, let them buy more T-3s or more peering, or 
whatever-don't screw with packet priority...


John

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

The flip side is that you are selling a customer a connection. That is 
how YOU are making your money... why do you care what they run over 
it? Does it matter if it's IPTV or doing an FTP file transfer?


However, I really don't think this is going to affect the "smaller" 
operators. This bill was designed for people like UUnet, AT&T, Sprint, 
etc. so they can start doing a "tiered" billing (in hopes of making 
more money for the same amount of bandwidth). I also heard that Google 
and some other players were possibly supporting this idea, in hopes 
that they would be able to pay for faster net speeds. (i.e. when 
someone does a Google search it would be "faster" because Google is 
paying AT&T or whomever for faster access than say Yahoo or whoever).


It is a bad idea all the way around. I can see no benefit to the 
average Internet user, and only more headaches for the ISP's.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

While I agree with the basic concept of net neutrality, I wonder what 
will happen with IPTV-VOD and the stress it puts on a broadband 
providers network.


If there is any application that I can think of that changes the 
rules of net neutrality it would be IPTV. I understand some will say 
you sold a certain size connection and should live up to that, but no 
ISP has sold a consumer grade broadband connection thinkig that a 
small percentage of it's customers would eat up his entire pipe. Or 
had in mind that this type of usage would be common place when he 
first sold his services and set pricing.


Matter of fact for a wisp this would kill us if tomorrow morning if 
we all woke up and found our customers all downloading tomorrows 
movies-television shows at the same time across our network.
That is the first point. The second point is, does hollywood video 
have a right to use a substantial amount of our network to deliver to 
both our common customers their product without paying us a toll fee?


Anyone else want to argue this?

It's a good subject that we should be discussing.

George

Jack Unger wrote:

Net Neutrality to me means preventing the large backbone providers 
(AT&T, etc.) from deciding whose packets will be allowed to use the 
Internet and how much extra it will cost to use the Internet, 
assuming that you are "allowed" to use it. Packets from sites can be 
(as I understand it) not just slowed down but prevented from 
crossing at all unless the backbone providers "approve". This, to 
me, is undemocratic, unjust, and bad for the citizens of any free 
country. That is why I support and have joined the coalition to 
"Save the Internet".


http://www.savetheinternet.com/

As responsible individuals who are involved in the Internet 
business, I urge each one of you to:


1. Read the website 

2. Do your own additional research on "Net Neutrality", the "First 
Amendment of the Internet" - based on the First Amendment to the 
American Constitution - Freedom of Speech.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

3. Reach an informed decision on the issue of "Net Neutrality"

4. If you agree, take action by signing up to join the coalition to 
save the Internet.


5. If you disagree, take action to support your position.

6. Publicize your efforts and help to get the word out to support 
your position.



So far, 500,000 (half a million) individuals and organizations have 
signed up to support the coalition to save the Internet. Of these, 
six are ISPs; none of the six appear to be WISPs.


http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

I would expect that at least a few WISPs would support this effort 
to keep the Internet accessible equally by everyone.


Thank you for listening,
 jack






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Nifty little thing...

[John Thomas]

It looks like $621 at CDW...

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1027055

John


Ryan Spott (Excell Data Corporation) wrote:

I have no idea what the cost is:

 

 


http://ortronics.com/us/products/wi-jack-duo/

 


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] Call to Vendors.....

[John Thomas]

If they are willing to open their wallets wide, this is Cisco's offering...

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps272/index.html


John


Blair Davis wrote:
This is an invitation to Vendors to contact me if they have equipment 
that could meet my needs...


I have been contacted by government unit that wishes to deploy a 
mobile, high speed data network in their vehicles.


The area of operation is tree infested.  The mobile units will never 
be more than 7 miles from a tower with a base station.  LoS is NOT 
assured from the mobile unit to the base.  The mobile units must 
switch base stations as needed with no user intervention.


Use of 2.4GHz band is not acceptable.

Min data rates are 256Kbit up by 1Mbit down.

I'm open to any technology that will work and to any vendor.  Licensed 
or unlicensed gear would be acceptable.


Contact me by e-mail or my cell below.  Calling late is fine.  I'm up 
late anyway!


--
Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP

Cell 269-650-5749




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Low cost generator

[John Thomas]

If you are serious about backup power, here is some equipment you might 
consider;


http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/42/p/1/pt/10/product.asp

or

http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/44/p/1/pt/8/product.asp

or

http://www.outbackpower.com/Backup.htm

John


George Rogato wrote:
If it was just for radios, I'd be just using ups with extra batteries, 
but it's actually for a small data room with a half a dozen or more 
servers and some pc routers etc as well as couple of radios.


Right now we are just using ups for each server, but they don't last 
long, they just help if the power blinks or is out for a short time.


But if the power is out for a few hours, I'd like to keep operating.


Tom DeReggi wrote:

George,

We investigated these units about 4 years ago, and they were our 
first pick for converting to Propaine backup.
However, at the time we decided against it for cost reasons. We did 
not need 16Kwatt and we were not aware of a 7Kwatt model at that time.
The $3500 for the 16K base unit is not the only cost. The autotranser 
switch added about $500, and then the Propain Tank is also an 
additional cost, but more importantly, the second we used Propaine in 
a cmmercial building, we needed a licensed Propain installer to do 
the work, to meet landlords requirements, which added another grand 
or two.


We instead installed Triplite 3500 watt power inverters $500 + 8 high 
end batteries (C&D150AH batteries @ $350 each, but have a 10year + 
lifespan).


The arguement was that generators can be finicky, sometimes not 
starting on demand, if not routinely tested and started, and with the 
battery inverter solution we also were bypassing a high UPS cost, 
which is high for 3500watt rated units. So we solved our problem for 
3 grand, instead of 6 grand after all considered, said, and done.


Now with that said. Seeing a 7Kwatt unit for only $2000, that 
changes everything! It would definately be more cost effective doing 
the generator instead of batteries.


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


- Original Message - From: "George Rogato" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Low cost generator


http://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=538 



I'm in the market for a generator and came across this one.
The auto transfer switch and propane caught my eye and I figured I'd 
share it with the list.


--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 
269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 8:33 AM









--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Switch with vlan

[John Thomas]

HP Procurve
Netgear Managed switches

JT

Butch Evans wrote:
I am in need of a switch (3, actually) that will allow me to prevent 
all communications between ports (vlans), but will trunk the traffic 
out an untagged port to the hotspot controller.


Any suggestions appreciated.




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cell Phone Repeaters.

[John Thomas]

I have a repeater in my car for my Nextel phone, and while it doesn't 
make the signal perfect, it does change  a 2 bar area into a 4 or 5 bar 
area, and the deadspots are much smaller. It cost about $179.00.


John Thomas


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I've looked into it.  Not done so yet but I keep thinking it would be 
cool to try something like that with a yagi going back to the main 
tower and an omni, or even another yagi, for local service.


I keep thinking about putting a booster setup like that in my car 
too.  grin I've seen dual band setups.

marlon

- Original Message - From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:15 PM
Subject: [WISPA] OT: Cell Phone Repeaters.


Have any of you guys installed cell phone repeaters for places 
before? I have a boat dock that needs Verizon cell phone service 
repeated but have no clue to really go about doing it. We have spoke 
to Wilson Antenna and they say we need at least a -80dB or so on our 
handheld cell phone to be able to repeat it. Just wondering if anyone 
else has done this before and what kind of results they have had? TIA.


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com for information.
 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 
at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 
at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks

[John Thomas]

Metricom-Richochet way overbuilt their network in some places and thus 
lost a lot of money. If they had a better business plan, they probably 
would have made it.


John


Rick Harnish wrote:

Did they fail because of the immature technology or a failed business plan?
Would the more mature technology available today have made an impact on
Metricom-Ricochets ultimate success or failure?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ralph
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:49 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks

Yes they have.
Metricom-Ricochet. They failed.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Allen Marsalis
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks

I take it that nobody has ever built a 900MHz NLOS mesh network 
before.  Which is not a good sign to me.  That's a sign that my idea 
probably won't work.


Allen




** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at
ISPCON **
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **



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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/999 - Release Date: 9/10/2007

5:43 PM
 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.14/999 - Release Date: 9/10/2007

5:43 PM
 




** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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



  




** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Cisco Wireless Bridges

[John Thomas]

They work OK for us in the East San Francisco Bay area.
They have the ability to move to a different channel if the noise gets 
too bad.


JT

Don Annas wrote:
Is anyone using the Cisco 1300 or 1400 series AP/Bridges?  

 


I know they are a bit pricing, but was curious how they performed in a noisy
environment?  

 

 

___ 
Don Annas 
Triad Telecom, Inc. 
336.510.3800 x111 
336.510.3801 FAX

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HYPERLINK "http://www.TriadTelecom.com"www.TriadTelecom.com 
___ 

 

 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1048 - Release Date: 10/3/2007

8:22 PM
 


--
This message was scanned and is believed to be clean.



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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



  




** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Advertising

[John Thomas]

I guess if you wanted to "push the envelope", you could put a Squid 
server in your core, do a download of a large file and then repeat. You 
could then advertise the second rate as up to X Mbps, and it would be 
technically correct.


John


Travis Johnson wrote:

Marlon,

We already did that... with CableOne and with the WiMax competitor... 
however, a lot of people don't check that before they read the ad in 
the newspaper that says "4meg wireless for $34.95" and think they are 
paying too much with our service.


Maybe I should start advertising "up to 100meg for $39.95" and see how 
that goes over? :)


Travis
Microserv

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I think that the first thing I would do is post a screen capture of a 
speakeasy test on your web site.  Put yours and theirs right there, 
side by side.  Let the "proof be in the puddin'".

marlon

- Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:27 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Advertising



Hi,

This issue with ComCast and their p2p connection blocking brings up 
another issue I would like to discuss... false advertising.


I have a competitor that is selling "up to 4meg down by 1meg up" for 
$34.95 with free installation and no contract. Another competitor is 
doing "up to 2meg" for $39.95... yet, when I purchased their service 
and did speed tests, the fastest I ever got was 500kbps. At what 
point is there a "false advertising" claim to be made against these 
companies that are advertising service that can NEVER been achieved 
at any time on their network?


I would think if you did speed tests every hour, 24 hours per day 
for a week and never got within 90% of their claimed speed, there 
could be a case. The damages would be in customers that are 
switching from my service to theirs based on their advertising 
claims. Each customer should be worth at least 12x the monthly 
revenue based on current market values.


Anyone else agree? Or am I way off base here?

Travis
Microserv
 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 
2007 at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 
at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 
at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **

--

Re: [WISPA] Advertising

[John Thomas]

I used to have a 192k SDSL connection to the Internet. When the price 
went up to $129 per month, I ended up going to a cable modem that was 
rated at 6 meg downloads. My wife was very vocal about how much slower 
the cable modem was. I don't know what they do, but DNS lookups are 
horrible on the cable networks, thus making connections sluggish. The 
LATENCY was very noticeable to a nontechnical person. She just knew that 
web pages came up much faster on a 192k SDSL business grade line as 
opposed to a 6 meg consumer grade one.


John



David E. Smith wrote:

Tom DeReggi wrote:

[ a nice sales pitch ]


Cust-"Is it faster than DSL or Cable?"
Sales- "The true measure of speed is Latency, and our latency 
outperforms both Cable and DSL. Thats why you won't see a "latency" 
spec in our competitor's advertisements"


Just out of curiosity, do you have one of your adverts posted 
somewhere?  I'm really interested to see how you make packet latency 
(which for most bulk traffic is a nearly useless metric of "speed" as 
the customer would perceive it) into a selling point.


Latency might be relevant for gamers, but otherwise, a couple hundred 
milliseconds between "click" and "file starts downloading" doesn't 
seem like it would be nearly as relevant as the time between "file 
starts downloading" and "file is finished downloading," which usually 
has little to do with latency. (I know, TCP slow-start and so on, but 
if you start trying to explain THAT to an end-user you've probably 
gone way over their head.)


David Smith
MVN.net
 



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 
at ISPCON **

** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?

[John Thomas]

If you have an APC SmartUPS 750 XL, you can add APC battery packs. They 
even have a UXBP24 that does

Battery Volt-Amp-Hour Capacity 3360

It is definitely more expensive than other batteries, but it does plug 
right in


John Thomas


Tom DeReggi wrote:
You also want to use a combination of putting the batteries in series and parallel, to keep the amperage within specs supported by the equipment. Its just not an issue of the cable and batteries, but also what the radio's ports will handle. Also charging is a factor. The more batteries the larger the load on the charging circuit.  Most UPS manufactuirers do not give the specs on the load that the charging circuit can handle.  


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


  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:53 AM

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?


  Hi,

  Again, you need to be careful... the charging unit in the smaller UPS systems 
(700, 1000, 1400) is not designed to run for 3-4 days to charge up 10 batteries 
that were drained from an outage. You will burn up the UPS.

  I would not recommend more than 4 external batteries on any small UPS.

  Travis
  Microserv

  Mark Nash wrote: 
Hooked up properly, you should be able to put in as many as you want/have

space for.

Can anyone share how to hook up batteries in parallel vs. series?

Also, once you put in the SNMP card, you can tell it how many external
batteries you have.  This is a way of estimating how much runtime you will
have.  It's not accurate, because you're using different batteries than it
expects.  For 2 batteries, I enter in 4 external batteries for this value.
It is as close as I've found you can get it.

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original Message - 
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?


  Thanks for the advice. I'm going to try one.

I'm wondering how many batteries I can gang together using the ups you
mentioned.

George


Mark Nash wrote:
UPS - $45 on ebay (buy one without batteries)
SNMP card - $125 on ebay
2 batteries & 2 outdoor battery compartments: $150-$175 (more, depending
on battery quality).  I get mine at Bimart.
misc connectors & wire $20

I had one site up for 36 hours with Trango Tlink, small switch, and
Tranzeo AP.  I thnk that's best-case-scenario.

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original Message - From: "George Rogato"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?


  Not sure how much I need really. It's the downtime.
This one pop has a trango, a wrap a metro and a cheap switch. Usually
when it looses power it could be 24 hours or more.

With your set up, how much do you pay including the 2 rv batteries and
how long have you had for a power outage?

I just ordered one of the cheapo generics for my house to check out.
But generic usually leaves that feeling of uncertainty that makes me
uneasy.



Mark Nash wrote:
George, are you really needing that much?  3KVA?  Or is it the higher
battery capacity you're wanting?

I buy used APC Smart-UPS SU700NET from ebay, without batteries.  Then
I buy
a couple RV batteries and hook them up (outside the enclosure, of
course).
I put in a AP9617 SNMP device and it gives me a little remote control
w/e-mail notification.  Doesn't do everything I want (PDU-ability to
power
off each receptacle individually, watchdog).

On a remote site, it'll give anywhere from 12-24 hours depending on
load &
whatchya got out there...

Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original Message - From: "George Rogato"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Which UPS to use?


  I need to buy a few ups's for some remote pops.

I was looking at APC and the place I buy stuff from had these:

http://www.pacificgeek.com/product.asp?ID=52353&C=216&S=-1

Is this worth buying, or should I go with APC at twice the price?



http://www.apcc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SUA3000
  
  





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT......Question

[John Thomas]

And if you need Windows applications, then this may work for you;

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

John

Steve wrote:

Ubuntu Linux is great for a family computer.  The install is easier than
window, you won't have the headaches of endless virus and spyware
removal issues. it is just as easy to learn as M$ windoze and you will
find that in the end you  are ahead of the game.
Anyone who fears linux for the novice user hasn't experienced
ubuntu/kubuntu.
I have encouraged quite a few budding computer users to make the switch
to ubuntu and they have abandoned windoze and aren't looking back.
Soon more people will be wondering why we have to pay tax to M$ on every
computer we buy.
:-)
Steve

--


Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Jeff,

A "family" computer should still be Windows. Too many programs your
family will want to run will require Windows. It's not worth the
headaches of a Linux box for "family" use.

Travis
Microserv

Jeff Broadwick wrote:


Hi Butch,

I'm getting close to a decision on a new computer for my family.  What Linux
desk-top would be best at this point?

Jeff 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
Why is everyone so down on Vista?  I have been using it for a long 
time, starting with the Beta Version-now using the Ultimate Version, 
without problems [laptops and PC's].  I think it is more a learning 
curve with so many changes rom the earlier versions.

Vista is here to stay and you should be learning t-not going backwards.



I agree with the "learning and not going backwards"Install Linux and get
started with the learning curve.

--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant
http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html




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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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


  
  






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

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



  





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Low-Profile PCI 802.11g

[John Thomas]

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4555/products_data_sheet09186a00801ebc33.html

They aren't cheap, but they come with a low profile bracket.

John

Mike Hammett wrote:
It certainly looks small, but it doesn't mention low profile 
anywhere.  Does it fit in a low profile slot?  Does it include a low 
profile bracket?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: "Jory Privett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low-Profile PCI 802.11g



MSI makes a nice one.

Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Low-Profile PCI 802.11g


Does anyone have a recommendation for an 802.11g device for a 
low-profile PCI slot?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





 


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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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








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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

[John Thomas]

Ciscos wireless LAN controllers can do this. From the web page at

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6366/products_qanda_item09186a008064a991.shtml

Q. What is a Rogue AP? Can the rogue APs in my wireless network be 
automatically blocked?

A. APs that are not part of your wireless deployment are called rogue APs. It 
can be either an autonomous AP or Lightweight AP that happens to be in the 
range of authorized APs. Rogue APs cannot be automatically blocked. This must 
be done manually. The reason for this is that, when a rogue AP is found, the 
finding AP disassociates the clients of the rogue AP, which causes denial of 
service to the clients. This can cause legal issues if the AP of the neighbor 
is detected as a rogue, and its clients are denied service. For more 
information on how rogue APs are detected by the WLC, refer to the document 
Rogue Detection under Unified Wireless Networks.

Greg Ihnen  wrote:

>There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
>ins
>and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>conventions.
>
>This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>will
>spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
>occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
>The quote:
>
>> One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
>> Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for
>their
>> wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
>> because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks
>have
>> stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they
>see
>> and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them
>side
>> by side.
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Cogent?

[John Thomas]

That statement alone sys a lot. We have a client with an MPLS network at 
Megapath- they don't do BGP. :-(

Bret Clark  wrote:

>No problems and their 1st level tech support actually have a clue about
>
>BGP.
>
>On 09/24/2012 06:46 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
>> Love them~
>>
>> Victoria Proffer
>> President/CEO
>> 314-974-5600
>> St. Louis Broadband, LLC
>> www. StLouisBroadband.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>On
>> Behalf Of Adam Greene
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:32 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Cogent?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Cogent approached us recently, trying to sell us a 100M/100M Internet
>pipe.
>> Anyone using them for upstream? Has your experience been generally
>positive
>> or negative?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses?

[John Thomas]

What is really sad is that they could license lite, for a couple hundred 
dollars a year, spectrum to several thousand wisps and end up with the same $ 
as selling it to the big boys that would just end up camping on it.

John

Doug Clark  wrote:

>Sorry John, this should have been directed @ Tim.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>---Original Message---
> 
>From: Doug Clark
>Date: 9/29/2012 7:43:43 AM
>To: j...@mvn.net;  WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses?
> 
>John, What delusional world are you living in to think that our
>government
>ever had the publics best interest at heart?  I wished it was so, but
>the
>reality is simply
>that the government will go down the road making mistake after mistake
>and
>giving in to Large Corporations that support them personally
>financially.
>What is best for the American public is "Z" on the list of almost every
>member that is in a position to shape the future and especially last on
>the
>list for this
>administration!  We will be lucky to have a couple of frequencies with
>heavy
>handed rules in place to use them.. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>---Original Message---
> 
>From: John Scrivner
>Date: 9/28/2012 8:14:44 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses?
> 
>The auctioning of SOME of the TVWS was set in stone by the FCC
>broadband
>plan and I by legislative mandate. There was a push by House
>Republicans to
>sell off ALL the TVWS to the highest bidders, leaving ZERO for
>unlicensed
>use. The Democratic controlled Senate prevailed and held strong to
>allowing
>a mix of incentive auctioned and unlicensed use of the TVWS. Having
>some
>beats having none.  
>Scriv
>
>
> 
>On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tim Reichhart 
>wrote:
>
>Hey Guys
>I just seen this article and I just wanted to pass it along:
>http://news
>cnet
>com/8301-13578_3-57522584-38/fcc-kicks-off-effort-to-reclaim-tv-spectrum-for-
>ireless/
> 
>Wanted to get your thoughts?
> 
>My thoughts is that all mobile carriers will buy all the whitespaces
>before
>we “WISP’s” even get to get play in the whitespaces.
> 
>Tim
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> 
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] ConnectEd

[John Thomas]

Unfortunately, pricing is all over the board, and there are schools that are 
buying 100 meg circuits. In CA Comcast territory, they offer 100 meg by 10 ( or 
20 ) for about $399 per month. Now, we all know that Comcast cherry picks where 
they provide service, so there are those that are a block away from Comcast 
facilities that have been quoted $10,000 or more to get connected.

In Oakland CA, there is a wireless provider that is doing 25 meg / 25 meg at 
$375 per month. In San Francisco Monkey brains is doing something similar.

John

Kevin Owen  wrote:
>It will be an interesting discussion for sure.  We currently have
>service built to many schools, most with the capacity to provide 100 +
>megs.  Most schools are purchasing somewhere in the 5 – 20meg range as
>that is what they can afford, including their current subsidy from
>E-Rate.  We are providing service to rural schools and they just can’t
>afford more.  Not sure how the FCC feels these schools will be able to
>afford 100+ meg connections and beyond that, where does the money come
>from to continue to fund E-Rate with what are sure to be large
>increased demands on the funding to support these larger pipes.
>
>Kevin
>
>
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:35 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] ConnectEd
>
>I think so. I asked the same question a few weeks ago and the response
>was something to the effect of, "Is this something WISPA members want
>to respond to?" The response seemed to be a resounding yes.
>
>Now I just hope that it's something that we can get a piece of vs.
>telling them to not do it.
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>From: "Kevin Owen" mailto:ko...@fsr.com>>
>To: "WISPA General List"
>mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:42:13 PM
>Subject: [WISPA] ConnectEd
>Do we know if WISPA as an organization is currently reviewing or plans
>to review/make comments to the NPRM for the revisions to the E-Rate
>program.  Is WISPA following the discussions concerning the Federal
>ConnectED program that wants to see a minimum connection standard to
>all schools and libraries of 100 megs with a 5 year goal of having
>access to 1 gig of available bandwidth for all schools and libraries?
>
>thanks,
>
>Kevin Owen
>First Step Internet, LLC
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] 802.11 and roaming

[John Thomas]

It sounds like you didn't try Cisco CAPWAP controller based APs. You have very 
fine control of how they roam.

John

Blair Davis  wrote:
>I've tried MikroTik.
>
>I've tried Cisco.
>
>I've tried UniFi.
>
>I pretty much don't think there is a working way to roam from AP to AP
>with 802.11 in an open system.
>
>The client holds on to the weak AP long after there are stronger AP's
>to talk to.
>
>I think this is just the way it works.
>
>Now, we are giving each AP a unique ESSID but keeping them bridged on
>the wired side and requiring the user to change the connection when out
>of range...
>
>Not the best answer, but it works much better for the clients who don't
>move much...  I'd love a better answer...
>
>-- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A
>Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC 
>
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions

[John Thomas]

Joe, for 1 reason, you have the fact that others are already doing it. My AT&T 
6 meg / 768 k circuit started out at unmetered for $19.99 per month. Then it 
went to 29.99 per month. Then came the 150 gig cap and $ 10 per each additional 
50 gigs, then the base rate went to $34.95, and with my overages (Netflix) I 
ended up paying $55 per month. I started shopping, and Charter cable does the 
same cap, but no overage, they reserve the right to up your tier or cancel your 
service. I ended up going Charter small business with 20 meg down and 3 meg up 
advertised, and 5 static IPs with no caps for $ 99.00 per month.

Are your clients going to push back? Yes, some of them will. Are some of them 
going to cancel service? Same answer.You just need to figure out the best way 
to get from here to there.

 John

Joe Miller  wrote:
>Joe,
>
> 
>
>I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our
>system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the
>“unlimited”
>platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a
>negative
>way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB
>system
>without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have
>thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in
>place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good
>price
>point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage
>I
>think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for
>discussion.
>Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see
>an
>increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the
>cost of
>bandwidth a lot easier.
>
> 
>
>I would like to come up with an email  for my customers to ask them
>what
>they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can
>use
>in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with
>flat
>rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate.
>
> 
>
>I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform
>will be
>a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer
>base
>to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. 
>
> 
>
>I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas.
>
> 
>
>We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think
>with
>enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for
>everyone.
>
> 
>
>Regards,
>
> 
>
>Joe Miller
>
>www.dslbyair.com
>
>www.facebook.com/dslbyair
>
>228-831-8881
>
> 
>
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Joe Fiero
>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
>
> 
>
>I believe Fred to be correct.  Packages based on speed are not the
>answer.
>We call our connection a “pipe”, so let’s use a related analogy;
>
> 
>
>You can have two homes with water service.  One is an older home that
>has a
>½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch
>service
>main.  
>
> 
>
>House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons
>per
>flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer
>uses
>40-55 gallons per load.
>
> 
>
>House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation
>has
>a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 – 2 gallons per flush, a low flow
>shower
>head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes
>washer
>that uses 20 gallons per load.
>
> 
>
>With a family of 5 in each house, it’s easy to see that , despite the
>smaller service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the
>water
>usage as house number 2.  A smaller pipe did nothing to control the
>flow
>because the flow limit of the pipe was not reached.  
>
> 
>
>Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet connection.
>Within reason, the size of the pipe will do little to limit heavy
>bandwidth
>usage.  It only serves to spread it out, creating a longer period of
>time
>that it puts a demand on our networks.
>
> 
>
>Like most,  we saw our network performance begin to deteriorate as
>Netflix
>switched from a physical to a digital delivery system.  The others
>since
>then have continued to slow our once speedy connections.  Now we, as an
>industry, are faced with a continued rebuild to meet a voracious demand
>for
>bandwidth to deliver content that we never intended, or anticipated. 
>Worse
>yet, we are being positioned to provide these improvements to support
>the
>business model of companies that barely acknowledge our existence.
>
> 
>
>And they are getting smarter in their use of our pipes.  There was a
>time
>when if you didn’t have a good 4.5 meg flow, Netflix would not stream. 
>They
>have gone to much more advanced encoding that will adjust to feeds of
>less
>than 2 megs, rendering a 3 meg rate limit useless in defending against
>them.
>
> 
>
>The issue of Net Neutrality somehow became synonymous with no caps. 

Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions

[John Thomas]

Also, if your billing systems allow for it, you probably want 3 tiers, minimal 
users, average users, and streaming users.

John

Joe Fiero  wrote:
>Joe, 
>
> 
>
>I too built up on an open usage platform and yes, when the subscribers
>logged into their PowerCode portals and viewed usage charts I got
>plenty of
>calls.  We have not yet implemented metered billing because the pipe is
>still not capable of delivery, but soon.
>
> 
>
>What I told the concerned callers was pretty much what I explained
>previously, that a small percentage of subscribers are utilizing the
>majority of the system’s resources and that it was effecting  everyone.
> I
>went on to explain how the goal was to charge those that use more
>services
>for their usage, and assure resources remain available for low volume
>users.
>I also add that based on FCC regulations I can not restrict any
>specific
>type of traffic, so this is the only fair way to assure everyone gets
>what
>they want.  
>
> 
>
>I tell them that our pricing model will not change cost to about 80% of
>our
>subscribers, and the other 20% will see increases based on actual
>usage.
>Many are fearful because they see the abusive rates charged by cellular
>carriers for small packages and immediately thing we are going to start
>hammering them for $150 per month.  Like much of what I have read here,
>I
>too am looking at about 30-50 GB of transfer as a base with a small per
>GB
>cost.  
>
> 
>
>The real value to the upgrade for me will be once we demonstrate we can
>deliver a solid stream that people that are trying to pull multiple
>streams
>will have the option to doing so by upgrading to a higher bandwidth
>package.
>And that is the point I was making before, that the amount of transfer
>has
>little to do with the pipe size, but that size does impact the
>subscriber’s
>ability to have concurrent streams.
>
> 
>
>So we are really focusing on three things; first, we are separating the
>basic and power subscribers, then we are offering those power
>subscribers
>the option to get whatever they want, providing they are paying for it.
>Sure a few will be pissed because they have this entitlement to
>unlimited
>service.  Tell them you will start the day the power and gas company
>remove
>their meters.
>
> 
>
>In the long run, the decisions made will provide maximum benefit to all
>subscribers.  Perhaps we will see a few that refuse to pay and leave,
>but we
>will increase significantly as word gets out about our new
>capabilities.
>Remember, all those smart televisions need a pipe to connect to these
>streaming services.  And that is the simplest answer, your changes in
>billing are to accommodate a market that did not exist when you
>deployed.
>When you and I put our systems in place Netflix was not streaming.  So
>we
>absolutely must accommodate these new high demand users, while
>acknowledging
>the long time basic users.  Just remember that many of them will move
>to the
>other side over the next few years and be very glad you were able to
>accommodate their new requirements.
>
> 
>
>Joe
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Joe Miller
>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:18 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
>
> 
>
>Joe,
>
> 
>
>I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our
>system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the
>“unlimited”
>platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a
>negative
>way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB
>system
>without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have
>thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in
>place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good
>price
>point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage
>I
>think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for
>discussion.
>Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see
>an
>increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the
>cost of
>bandwidth a lot easier.
>
> 
>
>I would like to come up with an email  for my customers to ask them
>what
>they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can
>use
>in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with
>flat
>rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate.
>
> 
>
>I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform
>will be
>a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer
>base
>to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. 
>
> 
>
>I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas.
>
> 
>
>We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think
>with
>enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for
>everyone.
>
> 
>
>Regards,
>
> 
>
>Joe Miller
>
>www.dslbyair.com
>
>www.facebook.com/dslbyair
>
>228-831-8881
>
>

Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.

[John Thomas]

Hey Ubiquiti, here is an idea for a new product... :-)

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On November 15, 2013 6:51:00 AM Eric Muehleisen  wrote:

http://www.ruckuswireless.com/press/releases/20130610-ruckus-adds-zoneflex-7781cm-access-point-to-its-portfolio

$5k MSRP. Even at half that...ouch!


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

>  Anyideas on the cost? It would be a great addition to any aerial fiber
> built out
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
>
> g...@aeronetpr.com
>
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>
> 787.273.4143
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Zach Mann
> *Sent:* Friday, November 15, 2013 10:30 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
>
>
>
> It's not just Comcast, TW, Cox are also taking advantage of the simplicity
> of the newer 7781-CM Access Point.   They are offering free wifi to
> existing clients for retention.  Down the road cellular offloading
> 802.11u
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Matt Hoppes 
> wrote:
>
> That's one way to avoid pole attachment fees! LOL.
>
> What is Comcast trying to accomplish with these?
>
>
> Matt Hoppes
> Director of Information Technology
> Indigo Wireless
> +1 (570) 723-7312
>
>
> On 11/15/13, 9:26 AM, Zach Mann wrote:
> > He's talking about these... (see attached)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Scott Carullo
>
> > mailto:sc...@brevardwireless.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not talking about the ones in peoples homes, I'm talking about
> > the ones the cable carrier hangs on the lines outside runing through
> > the city on every corner  clear LOS to every tower around.
> >
> > Scott Carullo
> > Technical Operations
> > 855-FLSPEED x102
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> 
> > *From*: "Brian Webster"  > >
> > *Sent*: Friday, November 15, 2013 8:24 AM
> > *To*: "WISPA General List"  > >
> > *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
>
> >
> > One good thing about the higher bands and the noise floor is that
> > free space loss works to your advantage. That being that a 5 GHz
> > indoor Omni home AP router signal will fall off as an interference
> > source as a much shorter distance than a 2.4 GHz device will. The
> > laws of physics work in your favor.
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Brian Webster
> >
>
> > www.wirelessmapping.com 
> >
> > www.Broadband-Mapping.com 
> >
> > *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> > 
> > [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> > ] *On Behalf Of *Scott Carullo
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:52 PM
> > *To:* Matt Hoppes; sc...@brevardwireless.com
> > ; WISPA General List
> > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
>
> >
> > Hard to tell, noise floor is noise floor which keeps creeping up -
> > we all know things work better when its quiet.  This used to worry
> > me a lot when I saw it coming, but then I realized it was already
> > there and I had no idea until I just happened to scan on some radios
> > (I don't usually install the stuff).  I'm not worried any more, if
> > its not one thing it will be another any way.  Thats what gives us
> > the edge every day, flexibility.  We will work around it, we always
> do.
> >
> > I figure a high gain antenna on a tower with a good directional CPE
> > will continue to work fine.  Their omni low gain antenna can't
> > compete with a 20-30db directional one.  Still sucks though, you
> > drive down the street and see one after another running 5Ghz just
> > knowing there probably isn't 3 connections in the whole city to
> them
> >
> > Scott Carullo
> > Technical Operations
> > 855-FLSPEED x102
> >
>
> >
> 
> >
> > *From*: "Matt Hoppes"  > >
> > *Sent*: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:43 PM
> > *To*: "sc...@brevardwireless.com "
> > mailto:sc...@brevardwireless.com>>,
> > "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> > *Cc*: "WISPA General List"  > >
> > *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
>
> >
> > Are you seeing any impact from them?
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 18:03, "Scott Carullo"
>
> > mailto:sc...@brevardwireless.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, won't matter either way with a 5Ghz AP on every street
> > corner.  Already seeing that in ou

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

[John Thomas]

Interesting statement regarding Cisco.
They sell $3000 per unit mesh equipment whose range would be hurt if power 
limits were dropped.


John

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On February 10, 2014 6:15:22 AM Fred Goldstein  wrote:


Blair Davis wrote,

> I just went and read a bunch of  the comments on the proceeding...
 >
 > I didn't read them all, but I didn't find one in favor of the lower
antenna gain...
 >
 > Has anyone else?


Motorola Solutions, makers of $6000 police walkie-talkies, explicitly 
supports the lower gain limit.


Cisco also supports the lower power rule. They only make local access 
points, after all, and are buddy-buddy with the Bells.


We should keep that in mind when making our purchase decisions.

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

Re: [WISPA] Banswidth usage

[John Thomas]

Netflix at 480p does about 3 to 5 megabits per second.
That upstream number looks high for Netflix.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On February 18, 2014 9:51:51 AM
"~NGL~"  wrote:
I
have a customer that has used 19 GBytes down and 9 GBytes up in the last 
18 hours.
 
What does a smart TV use?
 
What can they be doing?
 
NGL
 

  
  

If you can read this Thank A Teacher.And if it's 
  in English Thank A Soldier!




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

Re: [WISPA] package ideas

[John Thomas]

How about adding 5 Meg at $79, then 10 Meg at $109?

wi...@mncomm.com wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing

[John Thomas]

How about tiering? If you have the infrastructure for it, 2 megabits limited to 
50 gig, and then it slows down to 128 k for the rest of the month.

wi...@mncomm.com wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] package ideas

[John Thomas]

My suggestion was only relative to your current pricing. 

For reference, AT&T UVerse in my area is $34.95 for 6 Meg down, and 768 k up, 
and when you go past 150 gigs in a month, it's $10 for each 50 gigs. Charter is 
bragging about 30 megs down, and 4 megs up, capped at 250 gig ( I think) for 
$29.95 (12 month promo), however, they have it oversubscribed so bad I have run 
speed tests to Charters speedtest server and got 30 kilobits per second 
down-not a good way to impress a $100 per month Business class customer.

Greg Osborn  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] Need 50Mb highly symmetrical service in Dallas, Texas

[John Thomas]

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Brad Belton  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] Need 50Mb highly symmetrical service in Dallas, Texas

[John Thomas]

Do you have a tower that can service Plano?

Looking for 10 meg/10 meg IP v4, IP v6, BGP.

I checked with every other wireless provider in the area, and no one does IP 
v6, and most can't do BGP.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Brad Belton  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] 5.2 or 5.4 Short Hops

[John Thomas]

Cisco 1200 series are FCC certified for DFS bands.

We have a pair of 1250's doing a .3 mile link at 135 Megabits/sec. 
Throughput at about 9.5 Megabytes per second on a file copy. Yes, they 
are more expensive at about $650 each (CDW), but they work. If you don't 
need 802.11n, then the 1242's will do 802.11a at about $475 each. You do 
have to mount them in NEMA boxes.


John

On 1/20/2011 2:00 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
> If you want DFS2 legal the only thing I am aware of is moto
>
> Anything (old) DFS that is not already in the air is not legal to hang.
>
> There is a slough full of stuff that is pending DFS2 certification including 
> ubiquity.
>
> Mikrotik is not DFS2.
>
> Jerry Richardson
> Sent Mobile
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 1:40 PM, "Matt"  wrote:
>
>> Looking for some gear to do 4 short hops under a mile and not interfer
>> with existing 2.4 or 5.7 gear.  Was thinking of the 5.2 or 5.4 band
>> gear.  Whats out there that wont break the bank and is FCC compliant
>> in that band?  Leaning towards canopy but would like more bandwidth
>> and a lower price.
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Marketing ( was Re: Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update)

[John Thomas]

Smart marketing goes a long way. I know of a company that was basically 
getting a 3 x T-1 pushed its way because AT&T wanted to sell it to them. 
Wow, for only $700 per month you can have 4.5 Megabits per second. We 
told them go ask about Fiber. By going through a reseller, they were 
able to get AT&T to install a 10 meg x 10 meg fiber connection for $973 
per month. Of course the equipment is 100 meg port and they are actually 
getting about 20 + meg both directions, and are VERY happy with this 
arrangement. Of course if The TW Telecom rep had actually wanted to sell 
the product, they could have had 100 meg over fiber to their site for 
about $1400 per month. The fiber is literally in the street outside 
their building, but the TW Telecom guy didn't want to sell it.


A fellow Network Engineer has 1.5 meg / 384 k ADSL to his house. 
According to AT&T's website, for $45 he can get 6 meg / 768 k + 5 static 
IP addresses for $45 per month.  After having AT&T *hang up* on him 3 
times, hes has decided to drop AT&T and look at other alternatives.


John


On 4/5/2011 9:19 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

You can always upgrade More!

The key central question is ... how to 'Capitalize' on it  and make 
some Money.


There are always two ways the Market move .. Either PUSH (try to sell 
your excess capacity on the network , making it attractive , lower the 
selling price, while increasing margins ... or Packaging your products 
differently for a different Target Market).


or PULL .. where the customers are knocking on your doors to demand more.

So.. here is bit of Challenge for All of US, including Rick & Travis

If we have the capacity to deliver the high bandwidth to our 
customers.. and in our market place the Phone Company is still selling 
T1' s and Metro Ethernet's  like hot cakes.. then there is only one 
possible conclusion .


We need to Review our products / pricing / packaging strategy... since 
we are leaving a LOT on the Table..


now, if you tell me that in your / our market place.. the Telco's are 
hurting in business because folks are lining up purchase your / our 
circuits.. .then and only then I can say you are starting to 
'saturate' your territory.. time to expand and break new ground.


Some Food For Thought..

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet&  Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email:supp...@snappydsl.net

On 4/6/2011 12:08 AM, RickG wrote:
+100%! I've upgraded my network to the point that I cant anymore but 
90% of the customers are fine with 1.5 or 3Mbps!


On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Travis Johnson > wrote:


The other question is how much do you pay for the service? It all
comes
down to price.

I can deliver 10Mbps x 10Mbps up to 300Mbps x 300Mbps to anyone that
wants it... however, most people don't want to pay for it... ;)

Travis
Microserv


On 4/5/2011 5:37 AM, Charles Wu wrote:
> It's generally known that the 20 Mb "burst" given by cable
companies is throttled to sustained download speeds in the 1-3 Mb
range
>
> That said, the point I'm trying to make is that the technology
has come so far for mobile cellular data that we are now
"unconsciously" comparing it side-by-side to fixed terrestrial
broadband technologies (think of it this way, how many WISPs can
deliver "up-to" speeds of 8-10 Mb to a low power handset in the
middle of a concrete building 3+ miles away from a tower)
>
> -Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
>
> I just checked my Charter via Ookla and it said I was getting
20 Mbps down
> and 1 Mbps up, horse pucky.
> I only get that in speedtests and never when I have to upload
or download a
> big file via FTP or whatever.
> It generally gets throttled to dial up speeds or worse.
>
> ~V~
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On
> Behalf Of Charles Wu
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
>
> Sitting in my living room at 8 pm3 bars, laptop connected
to wireless
> router on phone
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/result/1236758959.png
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

[John Thomas]

Rick, what price are you offering 10 megs at? In our neck of the woods 
Towerstream is doing 8 meg at $800 per month.


John

On 4/5/2011 9:23 PM, RickG wrote:
Thats what I thought which is why I spent so much time and money on 
upgrading. I've got 30-50 megs at nearly every tower and I started 
offering 10Mbps posted rates. I even lowered the upgrade prices above 
3Mbps. Very few care and even fewer take it. In fact, I have some that 
ask if we have a slower plan! I'm starting to be concerned that 
dial-up is good enough!


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Jerry Richardson 
mailto:jrichard...@aircloud.com>> wrote:


For now.  I doubt that you will be able to sustain that 90% with
1.5 or 3.0 indefinitely. I know we won't.

- Jerry

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] *On Behalf Of *RickG
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:08 PM

*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

+100%! I've upgraded my network to the point that I cant anymore
but 90% of the customers are fine with 1.5 or 3Mbps!

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Travis Johnson mailto:t...@ida.net>> wrote:

The other question is how much do you pay for the service? It all
comes
down to price.

I can deliver 10Mbps x 10Mbps up to 300Mbps x 300Mbps to anyone that
wants it... however, most people don't want to pay for it... ;)

Travis
Microserv



On 4/5/2011 5:37 AM, Charles Wu wrote:
> It's generally known that the 20 Mb "burst" given by cable
companies is throttled to sustained download speeds in the 1-3 Mb
range
>
> That said, the point I'm trying to make is that the technology
has come so far for mobile cellular data that we are now
"unconsciously" comparing it side-by-side to fixed terrestrial
broadband technologies (think of it this way, how many WISPs can
deliver "up-to" speeds of 8-10 Mb to a low power handset in the
middle of a concrete building 3+ miles away from a tower)
>
> -Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
>
> I just checked my Charter via Ookla and it said I was getting 20
Mbps down
> and 1 Mbps up, horse pucky.
> I only get that in speedtests and never when I have to upload or
download a
> big file via FTP or whatever.
> It generally gets throttled to dial up speeds or worse.
>
> ~V~
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On
> Behalf Of Charles Wu
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
>
> Sitting in my living room at 8 pm3 bars, laptop connected to
wireless
> router on phone
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/result/1236758959.png
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:39 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW
>
> Yeah, its nice when a product is brand new, and you get the
whole sector all
>
> to yourself.
>
> I guess, its amazing that you are getting the speed to a
handset, without
> the big antenna outside.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Charles Wu"mailto:c...@cticonnect.com>>
> To:mailto:paolo.difrance...@level7.it>>; "WISPA
GeneralList"mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW
>
>
>> It is my understanding that Verizon is deploying an FDD version
of LTE
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
] On
>> Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco
>> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:09 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW
>>
>> most of the test are "half duplex" tests. In few words, they do one
>> direction, then the other direction (e.g. first the customer
download,
>> then the customer upload).

Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

[John Thomas]

Roman, for the things you are talking about, Ciscos are not necessarily 
stupid expensive.
We typically are installing Cisco 881 series routers on Cable modem 
Internet connections that run at 87 meg down and 20 meg up, and they 
rarely push more than a few % CPU. 880 series routers can be had for in 
the $450 - 700 range. Up a notch to the 891 series that is around $1000 
and the 1900 series in the 1200-1500 dollar range. The 1900s are 
necessary if you are into T-1's. The smartnets on these run from around 
$100 per year into about $200 per year.



John

On 7/7/2011 1:31 PM, Roman wrote:


Great thanks for all who participated in discussion! This community is 
very good place to ask question and get opinions from experienced 
wireless professionals.



Opinions vary, though. And as the way to thank community and to 
provoke additional discussion I would like to summarize all the inputs 
from community members. Hope to get unbiased view of core routers 
market as it is today.



Feel free to criticize it if you want! We can make it even better with 
help of WISP community!



Market segment



Econom



Middle



Top

Market players



Mikrotik



Imagestream



Vyatta



Juniper SRX



Cisco

Performance and price



20 Mbps – 219$ (RB750G)

2 GE – 1219$ (Power router 732)





Up to 8x1GE



300 Mbps – 1500$

Up to 8x1GE



Features



Proprietary OS



Open source, Linux-based

Quagga as dynamic routing package



High end of open source routers



Cisco competitor,

Junos



IOS – stable and proven

Advantages











Disadvantages



Up to 2x10GE (
Powerouter 732?)



OSPF issues







Use cases



Startups



Startups





Large enterprises with certified engineers



Large enterprises with certified engineers

Technical support



Free forum or Fee-based from Mikrotik consultants



Free software upgrades for life, 1 year of free support



You can purchase service contract



Many paid options



Many paid options

Try before buy



http://demo2.mt.lv/










-- Forwarded message --
From: *Roman* mailto:consulttele...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP
To: wireless@wispa.org 


What I would like to get at this stage is not actual configuration for 
one-time project. I need some "rule-of-thumb" in order to apply it for 
all of my projects to get budget calculation.
For example, for projects with not more than 200 subscribers and 10 
Mbps backhaul you advise to use configuration "Small". Then, for 
projects with up to 1000 subscribers and 100 Mbps backhaul, you advise 
to use configuration "Medium". For every type of configuration I would 
like to know its technical characteristics and price.


Thank you in advance!





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Internet Censorship

[John Thomas]

What is everyone's take on this?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially proposeDSLderegulationonThursday

[John Thomas]

Charles Wu wrote:



If anyone recalls the argument I had with Charles Wu...about how I would
NEVER surrender ownership of every part of my own network, from customer to
carrier hotel if there was any way of keeping it...


So here's the caveat...

If you refuse to be regulated, then you shouldn't complain when the FCC
rewrites the rules and stops regulating phone/cable incumbents

You can't have "double standards" - and they can always put up a super-mesh
network and trash your spectrum (in Chicago, SBC DSL modems now come w/ WiFi
access points turned on broadcasting away...sure, it's a convenience to the
consumers, but I cannot but wonder if this is an "insidious method" of
trashing 2.4 muni-wifi / wisp networks)

 


Especially when those wireless routers put out 400 mW.

John




-Charles

---
WISPNOG Park City, UT
http://www.wispnog.com
August 15-17, 2005

 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

[John Thomas]

This is a fantastic idea. I have a situation where I need to make a 24 
mile shot, and the tower owner already has 5 Ghz stuff on it and is 
reluctant to let me put 5 GHz equipment up. 6 GHz would be sweet, but I 
could probably use antennas smaller than 6 ft.


John


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


Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's 
a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very 
long distances.


For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often 
kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or 
the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.


Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road 
it's a tough rule to deal with.


I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the 
person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.


I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna 
rule for the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue 
interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss 
out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas.


Thoughts?
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] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

[John Thomas]

Lonnie, it would not be unreasonable to allow 2' or larger dishes. I 
don't think anyone here is thinking about real short shots.


John


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:


APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance
is excessive for the antenna gain.  These conditions will cause the
transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your
lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere.

I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes.  That simple
rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of
polluting it for close in shots.

You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you
continually need more bands.  The growing trend to higher power and
wide beam antennas has to stop.  We are now doing a shot with 3 foot
antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just
over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day),
yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power
cards.

In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take
the easy way.  I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas
if the rules get changed as you are proposing.

I say that is a mistake.

Regards,
Lonnie


On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's a
pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long
distances.

For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the
deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or the building
owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.

Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a
tough rule to deal with.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person
at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.

I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for
the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue interference in the band
due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power
control) requirement to use smaller antennas.

Thoughts?
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/

   




 




--
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

[John Thomas]

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

I have a sub that says his VOIP goes to crap when I limit upload to 
128k.  Does VOIP need more than that?


Brian


g.711 needs 64k plus signalling, so it can be around 128k. The problem 
is more lilkely that the 128k limit just drops packets rather than 
queuing them. Does it work OK if you limit to 144-192k?


John

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] u seen this ?

[John Thomas]

At least in Cisco devices, you can choose what components to TRUST with
COS or TOS tags.

John

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

  If it sets the priority bits on everything it will be an awesome boost
in speed UNTIL everybody else starts doing it.  Then there will be no
way to get VOIP or any other traffic boosted.

How to wreck it for everybody in one easy to use product.

Lonnie

On 8/21/05, G.Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  

http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/productlist.php?CatID=36&FamID=80&ProdID=216

 

seems like a qos device 

 

Gino A. Villarini, 

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.aeronetpr.com

787.767.7466

 
--
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] Here's a question for the group.....

[John Thomas]

The first thing I would do is to look carefully at the TOS of the Cable 
contract. Usually, they are very restrictive, but that may not matter to 
this customer. Then you need to consider, can you deliver 3-4 Meg to 
compete? If not, how much can you deliver? Many people will pay a little 
more for good service, witness those that buy ADSL from someone other 
than ILECS, and pay $5-20 per month more. If you could possibly offer 
him  similar speeds for $99 per month, do you think he would stay?


John

Bob Moldashel wrote:

OK...You have a customer that is paying $159 month for 256K service. 
No other service providers are available in the area except a full T1 
for $599+ per month. 8 Months later cable modem shows up and offers 
$79/month for the first year for new sign ups with 3-4 Mb downloads. 
Your customer paying $159/month still has 10 months left on his 
contract and is looking to cancel saying the service is slow.


What do you do?

Do you let the customer out of his contract??  Do you enforce the 
contract and possibly loose the customer at the end of the contract? 
Do you match cable's price and speed? Do you try to give him a better 
package and risk him "jumping ship" anyways?


I would love to hear everyone's ideas and input.

-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] Here's a question for the group.....

[John Thomas]

Can you offer him a 12 month contract, he pays install on 5 GHz equipment?

John

Bob Moldashel wrote:


Thanks for the reply Todd.

I have a few issues that we are dealing with.  First, we can't use 2.4 
GHz. DS.  The spectrum sucks here so there are no real economical CPE 
options. At present, many customers are on Alvarion FHSS. High 
bandwidth customers are on 5GHz. but are paying real prices


Bandwidth on the availability side is not an issue.  We buy bandwidth 
for about $20-25 per meg so that is not an issue and we have multiple 
provider fiber feeds to our NOC.


Unfortunately...customers are so sold on price and high speeds

-B-



Todd Lancaster wrote:

Well first off if my customers did a speed test and saw 256k My 
phones would be
ringing off the hook.  159.00?? Thats insane too, but if your getting 
more
power to you.  On the other hand if i was you I would search for more 
bandwidth

and a cost that doesnt bring your overhead up much.  Then I would open
customers up to more bandwidth and for alot less price. My customers 
are paying
40.00 a month and seeing 3-4meg down and 1meg up or more. Yeah seems 
cheap but
i have 100meg of internet bandwidth at a very affordable price and 
With that
price customers are signing up left and right. Anyways should you let 
him out
of the contract? I wouldnt thats what the contract is for, however i 
would find
a way to bump him up alot more in bandwidth and drop the price and 
then say ill

do this if you will renew with me plus with me your not a number your a
customer and if need be explain how with you if theres a issue you 
will resolve
it quickly. Also mention when he calls you he talks with the owner 
not some
highschool dipshit techie that doesnt know how to hardly turn on a 
machine. =) Just put it in nicer words but thats the point you want 
to make to him. Your
not just supplying him bandwidth your supplying him support that he 
can depend

on also.  Best of luck with that situation.


--
Thanks,
Todd Lancaster
Network Administrator
AlwaysOn-Line LLC.




Quoting Bob Moldashel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

 


OK...You have a customer that is paying $159 month for 256K service. No
other service providers are available in the area except a full T1 for
$599+ per month. 8 Months later cable modem shows up and offers
$79/month for the first year for new sign ups with 3-4 Mb downloads.
Your customer paying $159/month still has 10 months left on his 
contract

and is looking to cancel saying the service is slow.

What do you do?

Do you let the customer out of his contract??  Do you enforce the
contract and possibly loose the customer at the end of the contract? Do
you match cable's price and speed? Do you try to give him a better
package and risk him "jumping ship" anyways?

I would love to hear everyone's ideas and input.

-B-

--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  





 






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Here's a question for the group.....

[John Thomas]

ARe you anywhere near Cogent fiber?

Are you anywhere near

http://www.onfiber.com/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=28&navID=28

John

Blair Davis wrote:


I wish I could get 10meg for 1000.00 a month, let alone 100meg!!

Todd Lancaster wrote:

i get 100meg for 1000.00 a month. Like i said bandwidth is not my 
problem. I
have a personal 45meg link to my house.  When i run 
www.toast.net/performance
speed tests i chuckle. Hence why i dont care giving customers the 
bandwidth i
give them. I do monitor it closely, more so to keep stress off my 
AP's. Damn

kids and there P2P Programs.
--
Thanks,
Todd Lancaster
Network Administrator
AlwaysOn-Line LLC.
http://www.alwayson-line.net



Quoting Blair Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

 



  


Bandwidth on the availability side is not an issue.  We buy bandwidth
for about $20-25 per meg so that is not an issue and we have multiple
provider fiber feeds to our NOC.




$25 per meg?  I'm at $350 per 1.5 meg!

  


Unfortunately...customers are so sold on price and high speeds

-B-



Todd Lancaster wrote:




Well first off if my customers did a speed test and saw 256k My
phones would be
ringing off the hook.  159.00?? Thats insane too, but if your getting
more
power to you.  On the other hand if i was you I would search for more
bandwidth
and a cost that doesnt bring your overhead up much.  Then I would 
open

customers up to more bandwidth and for alot less price. My customers
are paying
40.00 a month and seeing 3-4meg down and 1meg up or more. Yeah seems
cheap but
i have 100meg of internet bandwidth at a very affordable price and
With that
price customers are signing up left and right. Anyways should you let
him out
of the contract? I wouldnt thats what the contract is for, however i
would find
a way to bump him up alot more in bandwidth and drop the price and
then say ill
do this if you will renew with me plus with me your not a number 
your a

customer and if need be explain how with you if theres a issue you
will resolve
it quickly. Also mention when he calls you he talks with the owner
not some
highschool dipshit techie that doesnt know how to hardly turn on a
machine. =) Just put it in nicer words but thats the point you want
to make to him. Your
not just supplying him bandwidth your supplying him support that he
can depend
on also.  Best of luck with that situation.


--
Thanks,
Todd Lancaster
Network Administrator
AlwaysOn-Line LLC.




Quoting Bob Moldashel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:



  

OK...You have a customer that is paying $159 month for 256K 
service. No
other service providers are available in the area except a full 
T1 for

$599+ per month. 8 Months later cable modem shows up and offers
$79/month for the first year for new sign ups with 3-4 Mb downloads.
Your customer paying $159/month still has 10 months left on his
contract
and is looking to cancel saying the service is slow.

What do you do?

Do you let the customer out of his contract??  Do you enforce the
contract and possibly loose the customer at the end of the 
contract? Do

you match cable's price and speed? Do you try to give him a better
package and risk him "jumping ship" anyways?

I would love to hear everyone's ideas and input.

-B-

--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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









  





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  







 





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: opportunity to help (wasRe: [WISPA] Hurricane?- worsethanmediasays)

[John Thomas]

Anyone got some big batteries and solar panels?

John

Mac Dearman wrote:



I think there will be a time we could possibly help - in the future. 
It will be about month before the power is restored, but then there 
might be areas where power may be up next week around Biloxi, Gulf 
Port...etc The next problem would be if there is internet access 
down there to be hooked in to that works! I understand from talking to 
the power people (Entergy) that the whole power grid is ruined - - not 
just down and it will have to be revamped from top to bottom so there 
may not be any power for a while anywhere on the Gulf Coast. We 
experienced power outages to "just South" of me yesterday and all 
night  - - I am
miles North of New Orleans so that will give you an idea of the extent 
of the grid problem they are facing. Vicksburg, Mississippi is exactly 
35 mile East of me on I-20 and they have had no power since the 
Katrina and remain in the dark today as well as Jackson, Mississippi - 
- their Capital. If it werent for back up generators at the main fiber 
connections in Jackson, Mississippi we wouldnt be sending and 
receiving these emails this morning.





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IP based Remote Reboot

[John Thomas]

Blair, it might be a good idea to allow for 48 v powering, since that is 
802.3af POE standard. This way your device could be mounted away from 
the Radio if one so chose to.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Well, I guess there is no reasonably priced unit out there that will 
do what I need and fit in the space allowed.


The comments on the list have shown me that there may be a demand for 
a unit like this.  I have decided to build my own.  I have also 
decided to make it available to others who might need it.


As part of this process, I am posting the planned specs and I am 
asking for additional ideas for features.


Specs:

Hardware

10baseT ethernet port for communication.
1-4 pair of RJ-45 pass thru jacks with lines 4 and 5 switched.
Each pass thru jack pair is independently switched
Relay(s) rated for up to 48VDC at 3A
Power available monitor for switched jack(s)
Unit powered via 5-12VDC

Software

Setup and controlled via web browser or telnet
Static IP with subnet and gateway
Programmable ping monitor for each relay
Selectable 'keep alive'  /  'I am here' ping
Adjustable power off delay
Adjustable power off time

Several things I am undecided about adding are:

Email notification of ping failure
Email notification of power available status change
Programmable, repeatable by time and date switching
   (this requires a real time clock and/or automatic synchronization 
with a time server and might increase the costs)


One thing I will not add:

Switching 110/220AC.  This would add many requirements for testing and 
considerable legal liability.


The price should be under $100 each.

Questions?

Comments?

Interest?

--

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648












--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IP based Remote Reboot

[John Thomas]

DLinks POE kits take 5 volts, bump it up to 48 across the wire and drop 
it back down to 5 volts at the other end. They list for about $25, so I 
wouldn't think it should cost you too much to do.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

John, I have considered it.  My only concern was that it might 
increase the final cost.  I will take another look at it.


Maybe where it can 'vampire' it's power off one of the switched 
circuits if the switched circuit is 48V POE?


The only bad thing about that is it will still require a 10/100 
network switch or such to connect it's communication port.




John Thomas wrote:

Blair, it might be a good idea to allow for 48 v powering, since that 
is 802.3af POE standard. This way your device could be mounted away 
from the Radio if one so chose to.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Well, I guess there is no reasonably priced unit out there that will 
do what I need and fit in the space allowed.


The comments on the list have shown me that there may be a demand 
for a unit like this.  I have decided to build my own.  I have also 
decided to make it available to others who might need it.


As part of this process, I am posting the planned specs and I am 
asking for additional ideas for features.


Specs:

Hardware

10baseT ethernet port for communication.
1-4 pair of RJ-45 pass thru jacks with lines 4 and 5 switched.
Each pass thru jack pair is independently switched
Relay(s) rated for up to 48VDC at 3A
Power available monitor for switched jack(s)
Unit powered via 5-12VDC

Software

Setup and controlled via web browser or telnet
Static IP with subnet and gateway
Programmable ping monitor for each relay
Selectable 'keep alive'  /  'I am here' ping
Adjustable power off delay
Adjustable power off time

Several things I am undecided about adding are:

Email notification of ping failure
Email notification of power available status change
Programmable, repeatable by time and date switching
   (this requires a real time clock and/or automatic synchronization 
with a time server and might increase the costs)


One thing I will not add:

Switching 110/220AC.  This would add many requirements for testing 
and considerable legal liability.


The price should be under $100 each.

Questions?

Comments?

Interest?

--

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648









--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IP based Remote Reboot

[John Thomas]

OK, I exaggerated, compuplus has them for $36 each. My point was that he 
only needs half the circuit. Now that I think of it, I guess that as 
long as his device takes 5-12 volts in, you would only need a power 
reducer to use 48 volts up. It's a lot easir to get 48 volts to go 300 
feet than it is to get 5-12 volts 300 feet.


John

A. Huppenthal wrote:


let me know where you get them for $25

John Thomas wrote:

DLinks POE kits take 5 volts, bump it up to 48 across the wire and 
drop it back down to 5 volts at the other end. They list for about 
$25, so I wouldn't think it should cost you too much to do.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

John, I have considered it.  My only concern was that it might 
increase the final cost.  I will take another look at it.


Maybe where it can 'vampire' it's power off one of the switched 
circuits if the switched circuit is 48V POE?


The only bad thing about that is it will still require a 10/100 
network switch or such to connect it's communication port.




John Thomas wrote:

Blair, it might be a good idea to allow for 48 v powering, since 
that is 802.3af POE standard. This way your device could be mounted 
away from the Radio if one so chose to.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Well, I guess there is no reasonably priced unit out there that 
will do what I need and fit in the space allowed.


The comments on the list have shown me that there may be a demand 
for a unit like this.  I have decided to build my own.  I have 
also decided to make it available to others who might need it.


As part of this process, I am posting the planned specs and I am 
asking for additional ideas for features.


Specs:

Hardware

10baseT ethernet port for communication.
1-4 pair of RJ-45 pass thru jacks with lines 4 and 5 switched.
Each pass thru jack pair is independently switched
Relay(s) rated for up to 48VDC at 3A
Power available monitor for switched jack(s)
Unit powered via 5-12VDC

Software

Setup and controlled via web browser or telnet
Static IP with subnet and gateway
Programmable ping monitor for each relay
Selectable 'keep alive'  /  'I am here' ping
Adjustable power off delay
Adjustable power off time

Several things I am undecided about adding are:

Email notification of ping failure
Email notification of power available status change
Programmable, repeatable by time and date switching
   (this requires a real time clock and/or automatic 
synchronization with a time server and might increase the costs)


One thing I will not add:

Switching 110/220AC.  This would add many requirements for testing 
and considerable legal liability.


The price should be under $100 each.

Questions?

Comments?

Interest?

--

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648













--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IP based Remote Reboot

[John Thomas]

Actually, Online Micro has the DWL-P200 for $30 and it can do 5 or 12 
volts out the back.


John

A. Huppenthal wrote:


let me know where you get them for $25

John Thomas wrote:

DLinks POE kits take 5 volts, bump it up to 48 across the wire and 
drop it back down to 5 volts at the other end. They list for about 
$25, so I wouldn't think it should cost you too much to do.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

John, I have considered it.  My only concern was that it might 
increase the final cost.  I will take another look at it.


Maybe where it can 'vampire' it's power off one of the switched 
circuits if the switched circuit is 48V POE?


The only bad thing about that is it will still require a 10/100 
network switch or such to connect it's communication port.




John Thomas wrote:

Blair, it might be a good idea to allow for 48 v powering, since 
that is 802.3af POE standard. This way your device could be mounted 
away from the Radio if one so chose to.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Well, I guess there is no reasonably priced unit out there that 
will do what I need and fit in the space allowed.


The comments on the list have shown me that there may be a demand 
for a unit like this.  I have decided to build my own.  I have 
also decided to make it available to others who might need it.


As part of this process, I am posting the planned specs and I am 
asking for additional ideas for features.


Specs:

Hardware

10baseT ethernet port for communication.
1-4 pair of RJ-45 pass thru jacks with lines 4 and 5 switched.
Each pass thru jack pair is independently switched
Relay(s) rated for up to 48VDC at 3A
Power available monitor for switched jack(s)
Unit powered via 5-12VDC

Software

Setup and controlled via web browser or telnet
Static IP with subnet and gateway
Programmable ping monitor for each relay
Selectable 'keep alive'  /  'I am here' ping
Adjustable power off delay
Adjustable power off time

Several things I am undecided about adding are:

Email notification of ping failure
Email notification of power available status change
Programmable, repeatable by time and date switching
   (this requires a real time clock and/or automatic 
synchronization with a time server and might increase the costs)


One thing I will not add:

Switching 110/220AC.  This would add many requirements for testing 
and considerable legal liability.


The price should be under $100 each.

Questions?

Comments?

Interest?

--

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648













--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IP based Remote Reboot

[John Thomas]

Right, my point here is that you don't need to do anything to make your 
system work with 48 volts. We just need to acquire a 48-12 volt convertor.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Not quite.  The D-Link POE kit has a 48VDC power block with a DC-DC 
step down unit at the other end.


$25 doesn't sound too bad until you see the current hardware budget.  :(

--

John Thomas wrote:

DLinks POE kits take 5 volts, bump it up to 48 across the wire and 
drop it back down to 5 volts at the other end. They list for about 
$25, so I wouldn't think it should cost you too much to do.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

John, I have considered it.  My only concern was that it might 
increase the final cost.  I will take another look at it.


Maybe where it can 'vampire' it's power off one of the switched 
circuits if the switched circuit is 48V POE?


The only bad thing about that is it will still require a 10/100 
network switch or such to connect it's communication port.




John Thomas wrote:

Blair, it might be a good idea to allow for 48 v powering, since 
that is 802.3af POE standard. This way your device could be mounted 
away from the Radio if one so chose to.


John

Blair Davis wrote:

Well, I guess there is no reasonably priced unit out there that 
will do what I need and fit in the space allowed.


The comments on the list have shown me that there may be a demand 
for a unit like this.  I have decided to build my own.  I have 
also decided to make it available to others who might need it.


As part of this process, I am posting the planned specs and I am 
asking for additional ideas for features.


Specs:

Hardware

10baseT ethernet port for communication.
1-4 pair of RJ-45 pass thru jacks with lines 4 and 5 switched.
Each pass thru jack pair is independently switched
Relay(s) rated for up to 48VDC at 3A
Power available monitor for switched jack(s)
Unit powered via 5-12VDC

Software

Setup and controlled via web browser or telnet
Static IP with subnet and gateway
Programmable ping monitor for each relay
Selectable 'keep alive'  /  'I am here' ping
Adjustable power off delay
Adjustable power off time

Several things I am undecided about adding are:

Email notification of ping failure
Email notification of power available status change
Programmable, repeatable by time and date switching
   (this requires a real time clock and/or automatic 
synchronization with a time server and might increase the costs)


One thing I will not add:

Switching 110/220AC.  This would add many requirements for testing 
and considerable legal liability.


The price should be under $100 each.

Questions?

Comments?

Interest?

--

Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648











--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Trouble in Hyperlink land?

[John Thomas]

Not necesarily true. We purchased a 10 pack of Lightening arrestors and 
got NFemale to NFemale and we wanted N Male to N Female. They refused to 
take them back, but they sent us the barrel adapters for free. They 
don't appear to llike to do RMA's.


John

Reliable Internet, LLC wrote:

So I guess it's all or nothing.   Spend 50k and they are your friend.  
Spend $10 and they flip you the bird.


Travis Johnson wrote:

I have been purchasing from Hyperlink for over 6 years. At one time, 
we were buying $50,000 per year in equipment from them. I have never 
had a problem, and in fact just placed an order with them today.


Travis
Microserv

Reliable Internet, LLC wrote:

Great feedback John.  I always wonder about these other people 
(posts on dsl reports), but I know you're honest and I believe you.  
I have ordered from them 3 or 4 times and all went well, but I also 
never got that warm fuzzy felling from them.  I will stay away 
forever now.


Brian

John Scrivner wrote:

We ordered some antennas that did not work out for us from 
Hyperlink. We asked if we could pay a restocking fee and return 
them. They were very evasive, just as outlined in the DSL Reports 
remarks. They eventually said they would allow a return but only 
for credit for future purchases. They also said after asking to do 
the return at the same time as a new order to use the credit that 
we were now blacklisted by them which means we can never buy from 
them again. This was our first and only experience with Hypelrink. 
I believe this makes them the worst vendor I have ever seen in my 
life. (Except for the RBOCs of course!) Buyer beware.

Scriv


Jory Privett wrote:

I ordered some parts from them last week.  The arrived on time and 
just what I ordered.


Jory Privett
WCCS

- Original Message - From: "Reliable Internet, LLC" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization" 


Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:14 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Trouble in Hyperlink land?


http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14859535

FYI
Anyone else getting screwed around by them?  If their being stupid 
maybe

they need to be avoided.

Brian
 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ezlinx.net SPAM

[John Thomas]

Jack, if you had come and introduced yourself here, you might have been 
well received. But because you  "cold-called" other WISPS, I won't do 
business with you. I will not do business with Sparco technologies 
either, even though they have some cool hardware, because they bought a 
mailing list and SPAMed me. You only get one chance to make a first 
impression, and for most WISPs, that means one SPAM and you are out.


John

Jack Weinberg wrote:


Hello List,

My name is Jack Weinberg I am the president of Ezlinx.net.  We do NOT SPAM 
anyone.  We do make cold calls to WISPS to tell them of our services.  We DO 
NOT repair waverider. We are a legitimate company offering repair and selling 
refurbed equipment that has been tested with a warranty.   We do not keep the 
units we do not fix, we return them so the customer has a full accounting of 
their units sent in for repair.

If anyone has any issues with our company please feel free to contact me 
directly.


Jack Weinberg, President
69 Public Square , 14th Floor
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
570-823-9804
1-866-439-5469
Fax 570-823-9867
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

http:// www.ezlinx.net  




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Pete Davis. NoDial.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ezlinx.net SPAM


I got the same one email. I also get hit with cold calls for people 
wanting to fix my radios. I don't know if they are the same company, or 
a different scam. The call center making the calls doesn't seem to know 
much, but they REALLY want you to send them broken radios.


Them: Do you have any broken out of warranty Tranzeo (or transio) radios?
Me: No. I don't use Tranzeo
Them: We fix all major brands. What kind of wireless CPE do you use?
Me: Waverider. Do you fix Waverider?
Them: Let me check.. yeah, we fix them.
Me: How much.
Them: uh... does $275 sound right?
Me: Have you ever fixed one? We can buy new ones for about $250 in 
quantity.

Them: Oh yeah... we fix them all the time How many do you have?
Me: About 25
Them: Well if you send them in, we will send back half of the ones we 
fix for no charge.

Me: What do you do with the ones you can't fix?
Them: We keep them for spare parts.
Me: I see. Does your lab have a CCU to test signal level sensitivity with?
Them: Oh yeah, we have all kinds of meters and osciloscopes, and stuff.
Me: Do you know what a CCU is?
Them: uh... let me check. hold on
(long pause)
Them: did we give you the address to send the equipment to?
Me: What equipment?
Them: the Wave equipment.
Me: Should I send the EUM's, the SPK's, or the GLD's. Can you fix all of 
those models? (I made up the last two)

Them: Oh yeah. We fix all of those.
Me: I will let you know.

Someone posted recently on how their CPE serial numbers that they sent 
in for repair showed up on ebay. I am not sure these "repair shops" 
spammers aren't fronts for ebay shops, but if they do a lot of "fix and 
send back half" work, they could have a lot of excess refirb equipment 
legitimately. I am just leary of anyone who "can fix anything" but 
doesn't know what it is.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net.


Reliable Internet, LLC wrote:

 

Do all you guys get this crap from them about once a week?  I have 
asked several times to be removed from their spam list.  Did they 
harvest this list or p-15?


Today I responded asking about how they fix these "Transio" they talk 
about.  LOL!  Stupid spammers can't even spell what they fix.  :)  I 
hate spam.


 Original Message 
Subject:we fix transio, trango, motorola, alvarion equipment
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:38:21 -0500 (EST)
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  Jan Weinberg
  ezlinx
  1-866-439-5469




My name is Jan and I am with ezlinx.net.  We sell refurbished
equipment-if you are interested most of our inventory can be viewed at
store.ezlinx.net. our phone is 1-866-439-5469.  Please ask for Jan
Weinberg.

Also, we fix any broken or dead units that you may have
around-particularly alvarion, transio, trango, motorola.  We do not charge
you a dollar fee-you ship us your equipment, we fix as much as we can and
then ship you back one half of all that we repair.  In other words, the
only cost to you is the shipping.

We also sell refurbished equipment and purchase any working or non working
units you may have around.

Looking forward to doing business with you.

Please feel free to contact me at 1-866-439-5469.  If I am not in please
ask for Jack.



Jan Weinberg
ezlinx.net































--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 11/20/2005




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Arc

Re: [WISPA] RE: SPAM and marketing

[John Thomas]

If you want to get your product /service out, first you find out where 
your desired clients are-mailing lists, newsgroups, etc, and then you go 
there.
It is not that hard to get something good to the right people, but it is 
real easy to SPAM people that will never take a second look at your stuff.


John


Peter R. wrote:


John Thomas wrote:

But because you  "cold-called" other WISPS, I won't do business with 
you.




You only get one chance to make a first impression, and for most 
WISPs, that means one SPAM and you are out.




Today, many, many companies use email marketing with opt-out instead 
of opt-in or "shared" email lists from partner companies. You don't 
like the unsolicited, but well targeted, email campaign. And 
apparently, you don't want to be cold-called. So that eliminates two 
of the most popular ways for sales teams to reach you. How would you 
suggest they market to you?


More important: How does your sales team market?

I started as a telecom agent in 2000. I now rep for 20+ carriers plus 
do business and marketing consulting. (Oh, and I help out with an ISP 
association, www.ii4a.org). Most telecom agents have left the ISPs 
alone for a few reasons. One is that is easier and more profitable to 
sell directly to the end-user. To YOUR customer.


I'm curious how you would want to be contacted, because without email 
or cold-call, that leaves direct mail and advertising. (Advertising 
only works as a branding exercise).


I'm trying to get vendors for an ISP Expo in 2 weeks. Many vendors do 
not feel it is even worth $199 to advertise. Some feel that ISPs are 
not a good market. (I'm talking about VOIP alarm companies, VOIP CPE 
vendors, hardware vendors).


There is a disconnect between your vendors and ISPs. I'm just 
wondering how to bridge that gap. (Especially since I have to sell 20 
more tickets to the Expo and get 4 more vendors :)


I welcome all input.

Thanks,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc.
http://4isps.com
813.496.2122




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet based authentication

[John Thomas]

John Scrivner wrote:

Anyone out there have experience with PPPoE?. I have a client who is a 
local government entity. They have people who have abused their 
Internet connection in the past. They restrict who has Internet access 
and when it can be used. One of our techs unknowingly circumvented 
protocol by helping an employee learn how to connect his personal 
laptop to the hardwired Ethernet network. Now the government entity is 
highly peeved at me. They want a complete report on the incident and a 
plan for how I will prevent people from doing this in the future at 
all locations. I am thinking we can use PPPoE to force all users even 
on the hardwired network to authenticate in order to get on the 
Internet. What are your thoughts? What will this break on an internal 
network that may be doing other things? Could an internal Windows 
network still function normally while the computer is not 
authenticated for Internet access? I have never done PPPoE and need a 
little guidance from those of you who have.

Many thanks,
Scriv



A little more info would be good. If they want to authenticate everyone, 
then 802.1x switches are available-if you don't authenticate, your port 
turns off. If they just want to limit Internet access, Websense or St. 
Bernard make products to do that.


John

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet based authentication

[John Thomas]

They can do either depending on configuration


John

Richard Munoz wrote:

I thought that these switches would deny the Source MAC Address 
instead of disabling the entire port.


-Richard M.

A little more info would be good. If they want to authenticate 
everyone, then 802.1x switches are available-if you don't 
authenticate, your port turns off. If they just want to limit 
Internet access, Websense or St. Bernard make products to do that.


John

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 
11/30/2005







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernetbasedauthentication)

[John Thomas]

Mac Dearman wrote:


Well,

  I agree to a point with both of you (Nunweiler & Marlon)- - you know 
I am different - - kinda like rocky roads ice cream, just sweeter :-)


I don't like DHCP for the client as its just too easy and requires no 
interaction with the client - EVER! I also dont like the fact that you 
get all the info you need to successfully connect to the internet 
"automatically" when you point "any" WiFi compatible device at one of 
my towers. I might as well give you the keys to my lock box in the 
bank :-)   I think I will leave the DHCP off, make a trip to your 
house and assign your IP statically as well as your DNS. I dont ever 
foresee changing my DNS servers addys, but if I do then its just a 
matter of making DNS resolve to whatever I want it to. Its all in DNS 
baby :-)


On the other hand - - If you do DHCP and someone plugs their router in 
backwards you are screwed! There are no "ifs"  "ands" or "buts" - - 
all you are lacking is the tattoo! If any portion of your network is 
set to receive a DHCP number - - it will do just that - - it dont care 
where it comes from - - it just wants a number and whoever/whatever 
answers the DHCP request - - its got a number that fits the niche even 
though it will totally disable the persons internet connection.


I aint for sure if I made it to the other hand yet or not so I shall 
continue till I run out of Margaritas (new recipe) or chicken.(ancient 
Chinese secret)   Doing a static routed network is for the birds!! I 
am not calling any names, but I have personally witnessed several 
"mighty fine" wireless Gurus sit at the base of a tower and hack away 
5 pages (front and back) (hours!) of  legal paper with static routes 
on them to add a new Access point!! If you get 1 static route upstream 
wrong (read - - one number) then you aint done JACK! Static routes is 
not the answer either. Static routing is just like bridging - - it 
will get you by a while, but you will surely move on to the real 
answer - -OSPF


  I have tried doing the static routing and I will tell you its like 
pulling my own teeth with out any anesthetics. It is not an answer, 
but a short term thing that could definitely last longer than bridging 
- - its a fact. If a man wants to do something that will put him a 
long time in the future before having to do anything different  - - I 
mean in excess of several thousand clients I suggest this:


1. Do not do DHCP - -assign static IPs


Does anyone know what DHCP *RESERVATIONS* are for? You don't get an 
address unless you are assigned an address based on client MAC address



2. implement OSPF and route your backbone



Good stuff maynard...

3. Bridge from the AP to the client - (get real, why would you need to 
route to the client? where else can the traffic go if the backbone is 
routed  and its a one way street?)


4. Do MAC with IP authentication via radius - or - PPPoE (either one is 
a real solution) each have their strengths and weaknesses



5. OSPF! (redundancy - YES!)
6. A really good "MikroTik Man" on the payroll and RB532's I do 
have suggestions and a name for this man!! call me!
7. DO NOT BUILD A TOTALLY BRIDGED NETWORK - - unless you plan to stay 
a really small fish (minnow) in a really big Ocean! I can attest what 
a mistake a bridged network can/will be! I can also attest to how easy 
it is to build, how FINE it runs and how fast that sucker will crumble 
down to the ground as you are standing at a keyboard trying all you 
know how to - - to no avail!! I can attest that you will learn a lot 
of stuff the hard way, how close you will learn such tools as Ethereal 
and angry ip, how much time you (& in my case - my wife)  will spend 
hunting a single vicious virus on a tremendous network because it 
affects a bridged network like the "walking" Pneumonia affects you and 
I - - its effects move around on the network!!  O  - - I can tell 
you some horror stories alright, but better than calling me - - call 
my wife!


Alright - - I now am stepping off my soap box and the floor is open! 
hehehehehe( I am not opinionated)


Margaritas anyone?


Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts)
318-728-8600 - Rayville
318-728-9600
318-376-2562 - cell










--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] P2P & Worm Monitoring/Alerting/Control

[John Thomas]

Mark, go over to http://www.mikrotik.com/download.html#dude

See if it does some/all of what you need.
As for limiting/shaping, your 3640 may do what you need.

John



Mark Nash wrote:

I'm at the point on my network now that I really need to control 
unnecessary bandwidth usage.  The biggest problem is the p2p users 
with their excessive upload, and worms come in a close second.
 
My network is comprised of a Cisco 3640, Cisco C4840G L3 switch for 
segmenting, and Dell 3324 managed switches.  I have run ntop in the 
past but I believe it only reports interactively through the web 
interface.  I wouldn't consider myself too far off from obtaining an 
SNMP station/software like SNMPc.
 
I'm needing to implement a solution that will monitor, alert on, and 
control this type of traffic.  Either not pass it or rate-limit it.  
I'm interested in solutions that have been implemented, home-grown, 
tested, failed, etc.
 
Thanks in advance...
 
Mark Nash

Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
325 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 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] Virtual AP

[John Thomas]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

John

Kurt Fankhauser wrote:

I do that too, 3 competitors have towers all within ¼ mile of each 
other, I put their ssid in my AP but turn the broadcast off, their 
clients associate to me and I deny all their access so when they try 
to hook up customers it looks like their connected but they cant 
figure out why it doesn’t work, keeps them from signing up clients in 
my area.


Kurt Fankhauser

WAVELINC

114 S. Walnut St.

Bucyrus, OH 44820

419-562-6405

www.wavelinc.com

-Original Message-
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Rick Smith

*Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:12 AM
*To:* 'WISPA General List'
*Subject:* RE: [WISPA] Virtual AP

actually, I was kidding about the competitor thing, wanted to see if 
it'd start a fire. It's something I'd thought of, but you can't route 
based on Virtual AP SSID


Having an invididual hotspot page per virtual SSID would be cool, on a 
wholesale level...




*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Scott Reed

*Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:44 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* RE: [WISPA] Virtual AP

What happens when a potential customer sees the competition's name? 
They call the competitor who says, "We don't do that." Then what, do 
you get called by the competitor?
I guess my question is, how does advertising the competitor's name 
help you?


I like the wholesale idea though. I may have to pursue that in the 
future.


Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net 

The season is Christmas, not X-mas, not the holiday, but Christmas, 
because

Christ was born to provide salvation to all who will believe!

*-- Original Message ---*
From: Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:15:08 -0500
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Virtual AP

Yep, I create virtual SSIDs for all my competitors names (they only 

do DSL) :)


I also wholesale service off one of my towers via 2.4 and 900 mhz to 

a local computer guy that likes to see his name "in the air" -

the virtual SSID thing was a natural win...

Not sure about the broadcast thing...haven't seen a performance hit 

because of the virtual ssid's ...

R

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

On Behalf Of Pete Davis

Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:57 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Virtual AP

Mikrotik APs have the capability to create a "Virtual AP" with a 

secondary SSID, but I haven't found much documentation about it.


Has anyone used this feature much? I could see this being useful 

during a transitional period, while you are changing the SSID, so

you can access the CPE with the "old" ssid.
I could also see this being useful for colocating two companies on 

the same tower/AP, like if you have an ISP geared toward
residential service, and another company name/marketing scheme for 

business customers.
I don't know what kind of performance impact there is when you create 

a bunch of APs on one radio.


I had a wierd thought about this, however: If I have 40 clients on an 

AP, and set up 40 "virtual AP's" on the network with each
client on his own SSID, do they count as 40 PTP links, allowing me to 

kick up the antenna gain like with the CPE?


Does the virtual AP really broadcast a secondary SSID, or does it 

switch between the two rapidly, kind of like a poor man's Time

Division Multiplexing.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 

12/23/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 

12/23/2005


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

*--- End of Original Message ---*

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 12/23/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 12/23/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing (how much speed do they really need)

[John Thomas]

And, when they have a problem and the jerk at Verizon support doesn't 
fix it.


There is some value in being able to talk to the owner of a business. 
There are prople that don't see it


I worked for a roofing company, they moved about 8-10 million dollars a 
year. The owner of the company was approached by Wells Fargo bank. Do 
you know what hetold Wells Fargo?
"When the president of Wells Fargo is willing to come over and pick up 
my daily receipts,then we can talk". You see, the President of the 
Brentwood bank  would occasionally come over and pick up the daily 
receipts. Granted, the roofing company was probably the biggest client 
of the bank, but it does show some value 


John

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I agree, most sub's use about 1Mbps to 2Mbps if they very active downloading
content (ftp, streaming, and some p2p) (I limit p2p on my system but allow some
bursts) other traffic is not limited

But when trying to sell a customer will go and say hey I can get 15Mbps from
verizon for $50 and only XX from  you


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Brian Rohrbacher
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing (how much speed do they really need)

Seriously, how much does a sub use anyway?  If you keep control over
p2p, how much are they really going to take anyway?  Anyone got numbers?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   


Although the service is not available yet in my area, it is getting close and
reports are it could be available in 2006 - check out this pricing - the
 


15Mbps
   


for $49.95 a month seems like a really good deal and would be tough to beat,
currently I am using Nstream/MT which gives me about 20Mbps to the customer

Up to 5 Mbps/2 Mbps $34.95 - $39.95
Up to 15 Mbps/2 Mbps$44.95 - $49.95
Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps$179.95 - $199.95




 


--
Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC
www.reliableinter.net
Cell 269-838-8338

"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 12/23/2005

   



 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing

[John Thomas]

Is your wireless network set up to allow roaming? You can't roam with 
fiber



John


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Ah but what about the new customer  who is comparing FIOS to what I offer? FIOS
will have tv and voip ( we do voip now but no tv )

Times are a changing and verizon is putting flyers on everything around boston,
ma to promote FIOS, like pizza box's, dry cleaning slips etc

Dan


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bob Moldashel
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing

It is reasons like this that I am a firm believer in contracts!

-B-


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   


Although the service is not available yet in my area, it is getting close and
reports are it could be available in 2006 - check out this pricing - the
 


15Mbps
   


for $49.95 a month seems like a really good deal and would be tough to beat,
currently I am using Nstream/MT which gives me about 20Mbps to the customer

Up to 5 Mbps/2 Mbps $34.95 - $39.95
Up to 15 Mbps/2 Mbps$44.95 - $49.95
Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps$179.95 - $199.95




 


--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 12/23/2005

   



 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing

[John Thomas]

Not all equipment can do it, but at least Cisco APs can. At layer 2 
using WDS, you can hand off from 1 AP to another while using VOIP and 
not lose the connection-it's less than 50 ms. If you want to do layer 3, 
it'll cost a bunch of money because the WLSM blade is $18,000 for the 
Catalyst 6500. Cisco just released their Mesh stuff, and it is also 
supposed to roam cleanly. We are anxiously awaitng our hardware to start 
testing, but if it works as advertised, it will be quite sweet. The Mesh 
units use 5.x GHz for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access.


John



Matt Liotta wrote:

FYI, when I visited the FCC, they were very specific that Wi-Fi cannot 
roam. Wi-Fi users can be nomadic in that as they move from AP to AP 
the client is disconnected and then reconnected. True roaming involves 
handoffs from node to node like on a cell network. Specifically, a 
cell phone actually makes a new connection and initiates the handoff. 
Wi-Fi clients are rather dumb and don't have this ability. The 
difference is related to maintaining state on any network connections, 
which is especially important for VoIP and VPN.


-Matt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

No, we don't use WIFI, it is strictly a fixed wireless network at 
this point


 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf

Of John Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing

Is your wireless network set up to allow roaming? You can't roam with
fiber


John


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Ah but what about the new customer  who is comparing FIOS to what I 
offer?



FIOS
  


will have tv and voip ( we do voip now but no tv )

Times are a changing and verizon is putting flyers on everything 
around



boston,
  


ma to promote FIOS, like pizza box's, dry cleaning slips etc

Dan







-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  



Behalf
  


Of Bob Moldashel
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] verizon fios pricing

It is reasons like this that I am a firm believer in contracts!

-B-


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



  

Although the service is not available yet in my area, it is 
getting close




and
  

reports are it could be available in 2006 - check out this 
pricing - the






15Mbps


  

for $49.95 a month seems like a really good deal and would be 
tough to




beat,
  

currently I am using Nstream/MT which gives me about 20Mbps to 
the customer


Up to 5 Mbps/2 Mbps   $34.95 - $39.95
Up to 15 Mbps/2 Mbps $44.95 - $49.95
Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps $179.95 - $199.95









--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 
12/23/2005




  






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 
12/23/2005


  



 






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Redundant Connections

[John Thomas]

I beg to differ, we only have 2 installed and they work as advertised.

John Thomas

warped.terranova.net wrote:

Stay away from the Xincom routers. They don't work and there is no 
support.


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


I was looking for something similar the other day.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=dual+wan+port+broadband+router&btnG=Google+Search 



You'll likely want something of a higher quality.  But it can be done.

I think that wisps that don't have a "backup" offering are missing a 
very big boat today.  Especially in the more urban markets.


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: 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Redundant Connections


A little feedback from the collective is appreciated here. I have a 
high school who has bought a connection from me but is also stuck 
with an old T1 circuit under contract for the next 3 years. They 
want both connections to be used all the time and for all traffic to 
automatically go through the working connection if one fails. 
Basically they want load balancing and failover. All addresses are 
nat'd private space IPs.  I would think I should be able to do this 
with Mikrotik and/or Star OS but I do not know how. Your thoughts  
and or other suggestions are highly appreciated. If only failover or 
only load balance is possible then suggestions on that are welcome 
also. By the way, the T1 provider is not me and will likely not work 
with me unfortunately. We have to leave their network settings intact.

Scriv

--
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] AP selection

[John Thomas]

What area do you need to cover? Cisco 100 series are in the $400-500 
range and do both A and G-they have 2 radios.
With a decent wireless card in the laptop, you can get several hundred 
feet. They will layer 2 fast roam and have all the enterprise features 
you can ask for.


John Thomas


chris cooper wrote:

 

 


Any recommendations for APs for high density, college student MTU?

Im looking at:  Senao, BlueSocket, Cisco.  The ciscos are nice, but as 
always, pricey.


 


Any pointers would be appreciated.

 


chris



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Redundant Connections

[John Thomas]

Is there some reason you are not using CEF or inverse MUX?

John Thomas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

These are PTP wired links - 3 of them combined together - 

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Redundant Connections

Have you used that backhaul to carry one of your high end business client's
cisco VPNs?
Most people don't even know how to detect that packets are getting sent out
of order, and don't realize bandwidth is being wasted on packet drops.
The reason is the only way to know is to go into the logs of the end user's
VPN routers. Cisco VPN gear has some good tools to test the VPN and report
the loss. It was the tech company of the subscriber, that it brought it to
our attention and noticed it.  And on $500 a month ARPU subs, if they see
something like that, it means cancellation, if it can't be resolved. The
reason is high end customers shoot for 100% not 99.9%. Andwhen things aren't
perfect, the smarter techs realize that a less than perfect link could
effect many different things that get troubleshooted over time, so the goal
is to make it perfect to rule it out from ever being a factor. If fiber can
make it perfect and wireless can't, wireless goes. That has been my
experience.

So my question to you is... when you use Mikrotik for Per Packet load
balancing, does the Mikrotik, just guarantee that the packets arrive in
order, or does the Mikrotik correct any errors in the packets getting
received out of order, or are your links lucky to just be capable of
delivering the packets in order? Technically, if a radio has a buffer or
queue, its possible for the protocols to re-order the packets so they are
back in order by the time they leave the other end of the Mikrotik router.
At a small penalty of latency, re-ordering could be acheived. Its also
possible that the end user VPN protocols could also already take care of
that. I don't know enoguh about the VPN venders to know which protocols
self-correct/guarantee correct packet ordering.

When using the per packet load balancing of theMikrotik, is the Mikrotik
also the radio, apposed to it be jsut the router connected Ethernet to
external radios of another brand. Its possible that without Ethernet
involved in between that they jsut get to the destination in order more
frequently.

Running per packet load balancing is much more reliable over circuits with
fixed factors such as wired and fiber connections.  In an RF enviroment its
a much different situation. There are many factors in RF that can cause a
packet to get delayed in delivery individually. For example an RF link that
automatically adjusts modulation when errors occur. Because two RF links may
transfer at different rates, the packets could arrive at different times.

I did not specify previously, but when mentioning the risk of per packet
load balancing, I was referring to using it within an RF environment.  And I
was referring to it being used for loadbalancing for a PtP link.  Load
balancing per packet between two different ISP transit providers, also could
result in serious out of order packet problems, thus justifying per session
load balancing.

A PTP wired link, very well may be a preferred method to use per packet load
balancing.

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


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Redundant Connections


   


I think it depends on the links involved and the remote termination, I
currently
run per packet round robin load balance across 3 T1's, no issue's with
VoIP or
VPN - of course the remote ends points are the same devices

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Redundant Connections

It important to consider the possibilties of packets arriving out of
order.
Some VPN protocols (deployed by corporate subscribers), will discard the
packets when they arrive out of order, and is almost as bad as packet
loss.
And VOIP quality can be degrated as well. Per session is preferred.

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


- Original Message -
From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Redundant Connections


   


Running a EoIP tunnel across both the T1 and your link you should be
able
to
load-balance across both links for incoming and outgoing traffic by
bonding
both EoIP interfaces at the customer site and your Mikrotik box. I have
done
this in the past but it has been ac

Re: [WISPA] AP selection

[John Thomas]

I meant Cisco 1100 series...   :-)

John Thomas wrote:

What area do you need to cover? Cisco 100 series are in the $400-500 
range and do both A and G-they have 2 radios.
With a decent wireless card in the laptop, you can get several hundred 
feet. They will layer 2 fast roam and have all the enterprise features 
you can ask for.


John Thomas


chris cooper wrote:

 

 


Any recommendations for APs for high density, college student MTU?

Im looking at:  Senao, BlueSocket, Cisco.  The ciscos are nice, but 
as always, pricey.


 


Any pointers would be appreciated.

 


chris





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

[John Thomas]

Do they have any AP's with wider than 60 degree beams?

John

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:



Trango Introduces New $149 WISP Subscriber Unit


  /— Lowest priced fixed wireless modem available —/

*SAN DIEGO, CA — January 18, 2006* - Trango Broadband Wireless, the 
leader in fixed broadband wireless equipment, introduced a major 
addition to its product line which will enable Wireless Internet 
Service Providers (WISPs) to, for the first time, compete head-to-head 
against cable and DSL providers with the high performance /Atlas Fox/ 
M5580M-FSU wireless modem, priced at just $149 and capable of internet 
transmission speeds from 10 to 30 Mbps.


“We truly believe that the introduction of the /Atlas Fox/ wireless 
modem is the sea change event that will transform the wireless 
internet service market into a consumer mass-market service capable of 
out-competing cable and DSL delivery methods,” said Zdravko Divjak, 
CEO and President of Trango Broadband Wireless. “This product is 
eliminating the final obstacle toward nationwide deployments of fixed 
broadband wireless networks capable of serving millions of users coast 
to coast.”


“There’s nothing /lite/ about the /Atlas Fox/ M5580M-FSU,” said Todd 
Easterling, Vice President of Worldwide Marketing for Trango Broadband 
Wireless. “This product offers the industry’s highest performance and 
at a dramatic price breakthrough. Our engineers have outdone 
themselves on this one, and many of the wireless internet service 
providers who have Beta-tested the /Atlas Fox /are raving about the 
price to performance ratio. To provide /real/ 10 Mbps to their 
subscribers, at only $149 for the CPE (consumer premise equipment), 
enables WISPs to offer high-speed internet access to an entirely new 
market. More than ever, the return on investment and break-even points 
for WISPs deploying Trango are measurably superior to our 
competitors,” added Mr. Easterling. “Over the past few months we have 
clearly seen the cost and design benefits associated with controlling 
the entire product development and sales process—from engineering 
specification, to radios rolling off the production line of our own 
state-of-the-art factory in San Diego, to the direct sales model for 
the U.S. market. And most importantly, we’re passing on many of these 
benefits to our customers.”


Trango’s /Atlas Fox/ M5580M-FSU wireless modem, which can reach 
internet subscribers over twelve miles away from an Access Point (AP), 
currently provides upload and download speeds up to 10Mbps, and is 
upgradeable to speeds over 30Mbps. This provides a platform for next 
generation internet services known as the “triple play” (voice, video 
and data). In contrast, cable and telephone/DSL companies generally 
offer service between 1 Mbps and 6 Mbps bandwidth for downloads, and 
between 128 Kbps and 768 Kbps for uploads. Trango is taking orders for 
the /Atlas Fox/ now. Shipments begin February 7 th, 2006.




Larry A Weidig wrote:

	Go to the web site, $149 CPE. 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Hendry
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

Have they produced a product that can pass 1Gbps full-duplex with a -92
signal in a NLOS environment?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 January 2006 19:01
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

Come on... they are lowering prices? Atlas will be $100 for cpe?

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   


On
Behalf
 


Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

Whooa  - - I got a phone call yesterday from Trango that made me smile
all over!

Guys and Gals - - - -- hang on as we are about to enter the Twilight
   


Zone!!
 


Trango has some news that is gonna make all of us smile deep, long and
wide!!! I am not at liberty to disclose the info - - but they will in
   


a
 


day or two from what I understand. Man its gonna be G R E A T!!



Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4227
318.303.4229




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release Date:
   


01/16/2006
 



 



--
Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC
www.reliableinter.net
Cell 269-838-8338

"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

[John Thomas]

You read my mind. If they even had 90 degree antennas it would be great

John

Blair Davis wrote:


That is too bad

Since my biggest tower has less than 30 users, putting 6 $1000 ap's on 
one tower just doesn't make sense


On the other hand, putting 3 AP's with 120deg antennas on a tower is 
something I can justify.  (just in case some one is listening)



Travis Johnson wrote:

No, they do not. I've asked for that exact thing since 2001 and 
original 5800 AP's. I've heard there may be something coming 
however... ;)


Travis
Microserv

Blair Davis wrote:

Anyone know if the Trango 5.8GHz ap's have an external antenna 
connection?  out here, 60deg sectors on an ap are a bit small














--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FW: Call your Senators: Stop SB245

[John Thomas]

Amen, Tom, this is a excellent snapshot. I am still concerned about what 
is going to happen in June or July when the ILECs don't have to share 
anymore...


John



Tom DeReggi wrote:


Charles,
 
> below their cost
 
This is the key phrase. Do you really think CLECs have asked ILECs to 
wholeslae their networks under cost? Definately not.
If they are, the ILEC is choosing to sell services below their cost 
retail as well. And the CLECs are not asking for anything more than 
the ILEC is already doing for themselves, if they were to seperate 
Circuit versus Internet/backbone/value added features. 
 
The truth is the only thing an ILEC is being asked today, is to sell 
service at less than retail, so profit can be made on the value and 
additional components that they provide. And ILECs are being asked to 
sell to providers that are viewed as competitors. 
 
This is where the ILEC mentality has been flawed and is greatly wrong. 
A CLEC should not be viewed as a Competitor. The CLEC should be viewed 
as a Partner.  If a relationship is done properly, Both the ILEC and 
the CLEC would get their fair share out of the deal. The problem is 
that ILECs are greedy, and want the whole pie for themselves.  I'd 
argue that its not the ILECs thats are getting invaded but the ISPs 
that are getting invaded. The ILECs have basically said, although we 
are a circuit provider, we now also want to be the content and service 
provider ALSO, and steal that position away from all the many value 
add providers (ISPs and CLECs) out there.  ILECs try to change the 
rules. ILECs are the ones that broke the laws of Anti-Trust, unsing 
the advantage of one service (network  circuits) to leverage their 
advantage to take over other peoples businesses (value add services 
and Internet), forgetting that it was the public and monopoly 
protection that allowed the ILEC to grow to their size and wealth.
 
Everyone wants to be King of the world if they could be. But this 
country did away with aristocracy 200 years ago. 
 
So I'd answer your comment, as no problem I'd be glad to wholesale my 
network. I offer my peice, you offer yours, and we grow quicker 
togeather, offer better value togeather, and we all prosper. And I'd 
ahve no problem selling our services at a discounted rate, 
proportional to the value they provide. 
 
Would I agree to sell them broadband under cost? No. It is a 
misconception that Verizon is doing that today. Its the Verizons and 
Comcasts that are forcing the price down to unprofitable levels, that 
force providers to use 30 year ROI models to plan for success.
Under cutting $500 a month services to $300 services (like CLECs do), 
is not any where the same thing as Verizon and Comcast going to 
businesses and selling services for $19 a month, at their own free 
will under cost, with the purpose to extinguish competitors, and force 
eveyone to run out of money, because ILECs have monopoly protection 
and in most cases protection from the legislature and FCC based on the 
Billions of Americans that would be effected, if ILECs had financial 
problems.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing networks, if there are 
provisions designed in to allow it to be safely shared.
The day a private investors says, I paid for my network 100% with my 
own money, and no protection, they have the right to say, I won't hare 
"MY" network.
 
The only providers I'm aware of in that position, are WISPs.  Its a 
compeltely different situation when things are turned around.
 
I'd be estatic to share my network with a Comcast or SBC, take 
advantage of their valuable expertise and marketing power. ONl;y thing 
is, in todays world it won't happen, they'll just pull a "Northpoint" 
deal.  Gather competitove confidential info, and backout.
 
Tom DeReggi

RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 


- Original Message -
*From:* Charles Wu 
*To:* 'WISPA General List' 
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:08 AM
*Subject:* RE: [WISPA] FW: Call your Senators: Stop SB245

Just a thought here
 
Is more or less regulation on facilities based providers a good or

bad thing for WISPs (who are also facilities based providers)
Keep in mind, supporting regulation for SBC / Comcast / whoever
sets the precedent for regulation of our internal networks
 
Lets think of one possible scenario
 
It's 2016 and now WISPs have taken over (killed off SBC / Comcast)

-- guys like Scriv and Harnish and DeReggi have hundreds of
thousands (if not millions) of customers each, and WISPA is some
national force that has huge influence on capital
hill...now...what happens of a regulatory act gets passed forcing
WISPs to wholesale their networks to SBC / Comcast below their cost
 
just a thought
 
-Charles
 
 


---
WiNOG Austin, TX
 

Re: [WISPA] Anyone know Verilan?

[John Thomas]

We will be doing our first Cisco Mesh  install next month. A s far as I 
know, we are the first Cisco Certified Mesh provider in the San 
Francisco Bay Area.


John Thomas
Clare Computer Solutions


Dylan Oliver wrote:
From 
http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5142 
<http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5142>:


DailyWireless is based in Portland and your editor, (Sam
Churchill), considers Steven Schroedl, the founder of VeriLAN, a
friend.


I like DailyWireless a lot. If they like VeriLAN, they must not be so 
bad. Eh?


Mr. Schroedl is perhaps busy working to href="http://www.pdc.us/unwire";>unwire portland per the article 
link aboved.


Anyone touch Cisco's mesh gear? Or Tropos' or Skypilot's? Any fans of 
mesh (Sascha aside) at all? All I hear is StarOS, Mikrotik, and 
Tranzeo in the WiFi space. Earthlink is doing the Philly project with 
Tropos and Canopy 5.8 PtMP for backhaul. How much is a Tropos 5210?


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] non-grid power

[John Thomas]

What are you powering? I am planning on spending about $40,000 to power 
my whole house off-grid..



John

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

We have one site that is non-grid power. I wish we had never installed 
there. We have now invested over $10,000 just in solar panels, wind 
turbine, battery banks, charge controllers, etc. to keep things running.


It's working much better now than when we started a few years ago with 
this site... but it's still a major pain.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

Just wondering what others have done for non-grid power options at 
towers. We are thinking solar is the way to go, but since we have 
never done anything like this I wanted to check with others.


-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] taxes and ideas

[John Thomas]

Here is a novel idea, how about those  that benefit from this list, 
digging into their pockets and paying their WISPA dues? I am not even a 
WISP yet, and have paid and receive benefits.


John Thomas
Clare Computer Solutions


Peter R. wrote:

Let me just add some ideas:

1) Follow what the DBS industry does: they get their customers 
involved in making noise to Congress. Mailers, email notices, website 
buttons, and online forms.


I understand that ISPs do not like to involve their customers for fear 
that the customers will think you are dying and leave. If handled 
appropriately, this need not be a worry.


II4A hired a lobbyist to write 7 template letters to be faxed to 
Congress (www.ii4a.org/letters/).


2) Making noise in DC is expensive and time consuming. And diplomacy 
is not something the ISP industry is noted for.


You need bucks. Start with a PayPal donation button. Put it 
everywhere. Collect some dough to speak for the consumers who like 
their 3rd Pipe bandwidth.


3) Come up with a realistic plan for the taxes. The gov't wants money. 
Instead of saying NO TAXES, give them an alternative plan of action. 
How could they collect additional money? PLay the DC game of compromise.


4) WISPA needs money. May I suggest taking this General list and 
making it a subscription? Maybe $9.95 per month or $100 for the year?


5) You might want to set up a WISPA Meeting at ISPCON in May or at the 
ISP Expo in Dallas in June.

(If you want help setting this up, let me know).

Those are my double-caffeine inspired thoughts this morning.

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/

Re: [WISPA] Commission Sales

[John Thomas]

Normally sales people will work off a base + commission. Sometimes the base is 
a draw, or partial commission in advance.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Carl Shivers  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] security certificate

[John Thomas]

Or you can buy a wildcard for a few hundred dollars and use it on all your 
devices.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Josh Luthman  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] security certificate

[John Thomas]

http://www.netcentraldomains.com

$209 per year.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Josh Luthman  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] security certificate

[John Thomas]

If you use Exchange 2007 or newer, you can change the internal dns name in your 
send and receive connectors to match the cert.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Timothy Way  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] Anyone serving Pompey NY? PR for WISPA

[John Thomas]

And I know someone in San Ramon that the business complex is across the street 
from Comcast. They want $10,000 to cross the street.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Mike Lyon  wrote:

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

Re: [WISPA] 2dbi vs 3dbi vs 5 dbi vs 100mw vs 400mw

[John Thomas]

You have the right idea. It is only when you increase power on both ends that 
the distance increases.

Tablets in particular only have about 10 - 15 mW radios so that is the lowest 
common denominator. If you have radios with removable antennas, you can 
sometimes use different antennas to improve your coverage.

I found some dual band omnis for like $8 each that were rated 7 dB. I'm seeing 
a 9 dB improvement on 2.4 GHz, but only about 3 dB on 5 GHz.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Colton Conor  wrote:

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

[WISPA] Looking for service

[John Thomas]

Looking for 10 meg 

1640 West Yosemite Blvd.
Manteca, CA 95337

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Renton WA - Looking for service

[John Thomas]

I'm looking for service
 
600 Powell Ave SW
Renton WA 98057
 
need 13 Static IP addresses
5 Megabits symmetric bandwidth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ping monitoring?

[John Thomas]

PRTG?
 
- Original Message - Subject: [WISPA] Ping monitoring?
From: "Jon Langeler" 
Date: 1/18/17 6:35 pm
To: a...@afmug.com

I can't get smokeping to send a ping say every second and only one each time. 
Any alternatives or suggestions? 
 
 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)

[John Thomas]

Cisco's 1242's are certified for 5.4-5.7 GHz. Could you use Cisco APs' 
and Mikrotik clients?

John


Randy Cosby wrote:
> I know the mikrotik R52N card is.. I was so excited...
>
> Until I read closer.  It's certified as a client device, but not as an 
> AP.  The AP has to do all the heavy DFS/TPC lifting :(
>
> Randy
>
>
> jp wrote:
>   
>> I'll send one lucky winner $30 paypal if they can show me within a week 
>> the M series is 5.4 certified via an FCC document.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:18:30PM -0400, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> Where?
>>>
>>> This is the FCC cert for the M5 Rocket
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yaolxlj
>>>
>>> its only certified for 5.8 ghz AND get this, for PTMP its only certified
>>> with 6db omnis . so how come they are selling sectors for them .
>>>
>>> Show me where its certified for 5.4, ill send you a $100 paypal
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> g...@aeronetpr.com
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:42 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
>>>
>>> Actually, their new M series has 5.4 GHz certification.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "jp" 
>>> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:42 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] To G or not to G :-)
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
 On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:08:02PM -0400, David Hulsebus wrote:
   
 
> I have used 411 AP's with XR5 cards and NS5L's with good success in
> small subdivision projects. 1/2 to 1 mile using 5M channels running
> 
>   
>>> G,
>>> 
>>>   
> mostly horizontal. We lock the rates lower than 54 if we see any CCQ
> numbers consistently below 66%. We've had our best success at 36MB.
> Lowering not raising the power in most cases improves our CCQ. But
> again, we're mostly within a half mile. We don't have a sector
> 
>   
>>> broader
>>> 
>>>   
> than 90 deg, run mostly 5.4 on the AP and 5.7 on our backhauls. One
> 
>   
>>> site
>>> 
>>>   
> Dave Hulsebus
> 
>   
 I'm curious what you use that is cheap and legal for 5.4 APs? I know
 that nothing UBNT makes is legal for 5.4 use in the US. Not being a
 frequency nazi, just looking for something legal for me to use.

 -- 
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
 */



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

   
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>> 
>>>   
>>   
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams

[John Thomas]

I just got a quote today from a HE reseller for the HE facility in 
Fremont CA
$599 cabinet with 15 amps
$699 cabinet with 15 amps and 20 Megabits/sec
$899 cabinet with 15 amps and 100 megabits/sec

John


Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> HE even has $1250 GEs
>> 
>
> Wow, is that transport or transit?
>
> Yeah, 2 months ago, we were going to get an Abovenet transport to Hurricain 
> transit because Hurricane's market low pricing, but then Equinix started 
> giving us a hard time on colo, trying to charge us more for the colo than 
> both the transport and transit links combined, so we pulled the plug on the 
> order.
>
> Hurricaine had the $2 /mb on GIg-E as long as also do IPv6 w/ IPv4. But 
> where HE did better is they also gave good pricing on the low capacity 
> commits. That makes it cost effective to give HE a try, before going all 
> out, provided you're in a colo they are at.
>
> We also found a couple providers that had some really cool programs like you 
> commit to a monthly dollar figure, but could accept the bandwdith from any 
> Equinix facility or distributed between several of them, and move the 
> capacity on the fly to either location. It was  great option for someone 
> wanting to expand nationwide, but not knowing where sales will develop first 
> more.
> But it also allowed Gig-E pricing without having to pay for GIg-E in 
> multiple locations.
>
> Its to bad its at Equinix though, cause a lot of teh value proposition got 
> killed once transport added to it to get out to remote cell site, or 
> Equinix's clueless overcharging of antenna roof space.
> Again its really sad when someone tried to charge more for an antenna 
> position than a GIg-E fiber link.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>
>
>   
>> Not to you, but to the thread:
>>
>> Cogent isn't even the low cost leader anymore.
>>
>> PCCW is often cheaper as is HE.
>>
>> HE even has $1250 GEs and $400 FEs.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:17 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>>
>> 
>>> Brad,
>>>
>>> Once again I disagree.
>>>
>>> Cogent represents themselves as  low cost, but they have never 
>>> represented
>>> themselves as low quality.
>>>
>>> Second, Cogent is most ideal as the FIRST PRIMARY provider, because 
>>> Cogent
>>> is higher performing, and faster speed connections are more affordable.
>>> I agree, a backup secondary provider is needed to help when there are
>>> short
>>> outages. The backup providers dont need to be as high a capacity, or as
>>> quality, as they are seldom used exempt in the rare emergencies.
>>>
>>> Third, What determines how inexpensive a Transit provider is has nothing
>>> to
>>> do with Quality, it has to do with who has more settlement free peers.
>>> Cogent costs less, because Cogent has to pay "fewer" other ISPs for
>>> capacity.  This DOES NOT mean they use low quality public peering, it
>>> means
>>> that they have more quality private peering negotiated at better terms.
>>>
>>>   
 Bottom line is any carrier can break
 
>>> That, I agree with.  Which is why its important to have two upstreams.
>>> But,
>>> that is not a reason to not buy Cogent first.
>>> By buying Cogent first it allows a provider to become more profitable
>>> sooner, and therefore able to afford sooner multiple upstreams.
>>>
>>> Its also depends on what the downstream offers in its value proposition.
>>> With Cogent, I offer my custoemrs Gig-E when others can offer 100mb.
>>> With Cogent, I can offer my customers half the price, if not 1/3rd the
>>> price
>>> that my tier2 competitiors can offer.
>>> With Cogent, I offer excellent performance, better than most, most of the
>>> time, and if they get an outage so what.
>>> Is it really better to have less good performance all the time, to gain
>>> .009
>>> better uptime?
>>> That depends on the target client base of the WISP.
>>>
>>> You also got another thing right... I am largely dependant on Cogent, and
>>> I
>>> hate that.  But its relevent to ask why I'm dependant? When I first
>>> started
>>> out, it was because of price, but not anymore. I'm dependant on Cogent
>>> because its really hard to find a Tier1 Carrier that can offer anywhere
>>> near
>>> as equivellent consistent performance and tech support. My customers
>>> really
>>> noticed, everytime I tried someone else, so someone else never lastest.
>>>
>>> Note that I did not say "uptime", I said "performance".
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Bra

Re: [WISPA] cellular repeater/bidirectional amps

[John Thomas]

Sometimes, you can contact the carriers and they will install repeaters 
for their clients.

John


jp wrote:
> I've got a wi-ex zboost yx500-cel at home and it works great to bring 
> cellular into my home which is otherwise a dead-zone.
>
> Now, since we're the local gurus of all thing wireless, one of our 
> customers is wanting something comparable for a larger area in an rf 
> unfriendly building (large metal building with various metal additions). 
> It may be necessary to have multiple cellular boosters to provide the 
> indoor coverage they need. I'm studying the various brands at Tessco, 
> and they include the wi-ex series, Wilson, and Digital Antenna Inc.
>
> Seems these are amps, do I need to be concerned about feedback between 
> systems if these are within earshot of each other? I know the outdoor 
> antenna has to be sufficiently isolated from the indoor antenna to 
> provide the gain, which shouldn't be a problem based on the type of 
> construction. Has anyone does a project like this?
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Court says cities have the right tobar telecommunicationstowers

[John Thomas]

There are several of these on I80 and Hwy 50 in Northern CA. These silly 
things cost like $40,000 to sort of look like a tree

John

Tom Sharples wrote:
> We spotted several on a recent road-trip around the Sacramento area. Looked 
> like the world's worst fake Christmas tree from Walmart!
>
> Tom S.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Eje Gustafsson" 
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court says cities have the right tobar 
> telecommunicationstowers
>
>
>   
>> You can find a lot of fake palm trees in Las Vegas for similar reasons 
>> that
>> if they didn't "hide" the towers then they couldn't put up any more. Drive
>> north towards Nellis airforce base on I-15 on the left side along the rail
>> road tracks one of the palms is not a real palm. There are plenty others
>> around that I seen on different smaller roads.
>>
>> Cities wants cell phones and good coverage but many starts to be sticklers
>> about letting the towers go up to give this coverage. T-mobile and AT&T 
>> had
>> a very long outdrawn "fight" to be able to install the towers they needed 
>> in
>> Pittsburg to get the coverage required. They ended up having to share 
>> tower
>> but even then it was not easy for then. Sister town Frontenac expedited
>> their request on the other hand. The differences between cities politics 
>> and
>> building approvals can be very different (one reason we are now located in
>> Frontenac instead of Pittsburg because Frontenac bent over backwards to 
>> make
>> us happy and get us going while with both Pittsburg as well the county
>> everything we wanted threw up red flags).
>>
>> / Eje
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Greg
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:19 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court says cities have the right to bar
>> telecommunicationstowers
>>
>> The town of Saddle River NJ fought the phone company and they reached an
>> agreement - the phone company decorated the tower with fake evergreen
>> branches. The tower looks like a big pine tree. If you're ever driving on
>> Rt. 17 look at the big pine tree right next to the highway at the Saddle
>> River exit.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jeff Broadwick
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> "After all, travel is often as much about the journey as it is about the
>>> destination."
>>>
>>> WOW?!?!
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:48 AM
>>> To: wireless@wispa.org
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Court says cities have the right to bar
>>> telecommunicationstowers
>>>
>>> http://www.benton.org/outgoingframe/29127
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --

Re: [WISPA] MT Lamer question

[John Thomas]

Is there any reason that you want those IP addresses accessing your box 
at all?
You can probably block several /8's and make things work better.

John


Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
> Lamer question-
> I have a MT box we use for a public hotspot and logs reveal folks are trying 
> to hack the password (from WAN, not actual customers) - IPs trace back to 
> China and stuff.. anyhow - is there an easy way to implement a temporary (12 
> hour) or so ban on an IP after x attempts?  Thanks.
>
> `S
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] customers dogs chewing on CAT5

[John Thomas]

How about

http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=69899-1267-FO550M&lpage=none

where the dogs can reach it?

John

Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
> I've had several customers that have had their dog chew on the Cat5 going
> from the house to the TV tower and some of them multiple times.
>
>  
>
> Anyone have ideas on how to keep the dog from chewing on the wire? I've got
> one customer on their 3rd Cat5 run and going out right now to replace a
> different customer that will be his 3rd one as well. 
>
>  
>
> I'm about ready to shoot the stinking dog..
>
>  
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches

[John Thomas]

I know that used to be an issue, but we have been seeing great results 
with Cisco 2960 series switches.

John


RickG wrote:
> Cisco makes great routers but their switches suck. They have port
> compatability issues with other equipment.
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
>   
>> There are tons of great Cisco Switches going for cheap on the secondary
>> markets in that price range and port density...
>>
>> I think the orignial poster of the email thread was looking for something
>> small, hardend, low power for outdoor application.
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
>> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jayson Baker
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:45 PM
>> To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches
>>
>> Not really, but if MT would come out with a RouterBoard that had 12, 24, 48
>> ports and was under $300 we'd buy a *ton* of them.
>> I wouldn't think it'd be that difficult, actually.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> BTW, quick question, anyone out there using Router Boards as l3 Switches
>>>   
>> ?
>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
>>> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Nick Olsen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:53 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches
>>>
>>> This is my main complaint with the 1800-8G and the 1800-24G
>>>
>>> I've asked procurve to add these 3 features and got a standard "we'll
>>> think about it" answer.
>>>
>>> 1. Ability to label ports
>>> 2. Ability to label vlans
>>> 3. Ability to disable a port
>>>
>>> All very simple requests that can't take much in terms of
>>> memory/firmware size to implement.
>>>
>>> In terms of speed, stability, function other then the above, its a
>>> awesome switch.
>>>
>>> Nick Olsen
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> (321) 205-1100 x106
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:42 PM
>>> To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA
>>> General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches
>>>
>>> There are several classes of VLAN switches.
>>>
>>> I'll use SMC as an example...
>>>
>>> 1) They have the higher end models that are Full VLAN support that are
>>> very
>>>
>>> intuitive and fully flexible. For example, they'll allow you to label
>>> each
>>>
>>> port in web interface. They fully refer to each ports specifying their
>>> Egress and Ingress VLAn support, etc.  They allow every thing to be done.
>>> But because they are intuitive, in the web interface itself,  its easy
>>> to configure them without accidentally misconfiguring another clients.
>>> They make great switches that will act as both Trunk backbone switches
>>> and end location switches.
>>>
>>> 2) then they have lower end model. They let one do almost everything
>>> with VLAN. But they are way less intuitive. And they dont work as well
>>> for dual
>>>
>>> purpose, and tend to work better as a backbone or end location switch.
>>> They
>>>
>>> lack abilty to label ports.They have confusing terminology to enable
>>> or disable like "VLAN Aware" that may not be specific on what VLAN
>>> functionality is enabled by making it aware.
>>> It usually takes a quick read of the manual before making a config,
>>> because
>>>
>>> the logic is not straight forward. Many Web Switches are like this.
>>>
>>> SMC and Intellinet have affordable 8 port VLAN switches that are
>>> functional, but with the firmware that is equivellent to low end VLAN
>>> switches as described in #2 above.
>>> But I beleive both have text, SNMP, serial, and Web interfaces, which
>>> give
>>>
>>> them a step up over other basic web switch products.
>>> Both models sell under $200, and have atleast 2 Gigabit ports,
>>> possibly SPF
>>>
>>> ports.
>>>
>>> I just wish someone made a 8 port VLAN switch for the low dollar cost,
>>> that
>>>
>>> had the HIGH END INTUITIVE VLAN firmware, that allowed each port to be
>>> labled in software.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Nick Olsen" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small Managed Switches
>>>
>>>   
 Well, there is the Procurve 1800-8G that is 8 ports gigabit,
 Management
 
>>> is
>>>   
 a little light, but it will do the simple stuff. like vlans and such.
 They are fanless and we have them on towers, bullet proof all day long.

 Nick Olsen
 Brevard Wireless
 (321) 205-1100 x106


 --

Re: [WISPA] Cat3 instead of Cat5

[John Thomas]

Also HP had 100 VG AnyLAN that used 4 wires.

John


Jerry Richardson wrote:
> There was a technology that used all 4 pairs. It was a proprietary solution 
> that put Video on one set and data on the other. Broadxxx or something like 
> that.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:01 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cat3 instead of Cat5
>
> Don't think so, pretty confident gigabit is 2 pair still.  Could be wrong...
>
> On 11/18/09, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>   
>> I believe 100 megs requires 2 pair and Gig requires all 4 pair in addition
>> to certain quality measures.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Robert West" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:58 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cat3 instead of Cat5
>>
>> 
>>> Phone line is twisted pair and normally 2 pair.  Transmit and receive.
>>> Can
>>> easily do 100mbps.  You could even get it to do gigabit with not much
>>> effort.  No PoE though, no pair for that. HOWEVER, the problems come from
>>> the nasty connections everyone including the phone company has made.  Most
>>> phone line isn't "clean" like a network cable you would run.  Who knows
>>> where the hell the splices and rodent chewed ends are at and if they stick
>>> with a common wiring scheme throughout the structure.  If it was the best
>>> option, you could at least test and give up quickly if it fell on its
>>> face.
>>>
>>> There used to be some home networking nics that used the phone lines in
>>> the
>>> home and you could also use the phones with the things connected.  That
>>> was
>>> in the late 1990's, early 2000.  Some Gateway desktops came with them.  I
>>> never saw them used though.
>>>
>>> Bob-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of RickG
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:02 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cat3 instead of Cat5
>>>
>>> That would be great! But, I cant find anything on the net except
>>> references
>>> to the standard being 10Mbps:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_3_cable
>>> Any examples?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Kevin Neal  wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 With the right equipment I've heard of gigabit over rusted old barbwire!

 -Kevin


 On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM, RickG  wrote:
 
> 100Mbps on cat 3? Really?
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Forbes Mercy
> wrote:
>
>   
>> We currently run a Cat5 into the wall then put a jack into the house.
>> My question is since you can get 100MB through a Cat3 which is the
>> same
>> as a phone line why can't we run the connection into their phone line?
>> Most of our customers have cell phone only and their internal wiring
>> is
>> virtually unused.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Forbes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   


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


 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Need a new AP

[John Thomas]

Cisco 1200 series will plug right in

John

AJ wrote:
> Hahaha Gmail ads came up with this firmware as I was reading this thread:
>
> http://www.fireserve.com/products/ubiquiti/bullet-m-firmware.php
>
> chop
> *Adds 802.11-compatible encryption modes
> *The stock Ubiquiti firmware only supports WPA-AES encryption.  Our firmware
> adds support for 64-bit and 128-bit WEP, WPA-TKIP and WPA2-TKIP.
> /chop
>
>
> Pretty spendy for just a single unit...
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jayson Baker wrote:
>
>   
>> In that case, use a MikroTik RB411R.
>> Integrated radio, and MT can do various encryptions you need.
>>
>> Sorry, I overlooked that part of the request.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, pat  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Bullet M2's won't do WEP until the release of firmware version 5.1 which
>>> has been "in just a couple of weeks" for at least the last two months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jayson Baker wrote:
>>>   
 UBNT Bullet M2?

 On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM, pat  wrote:


 
> I have one small group on an old Cisco Aironet 350, which only does
> 802.11b.
>
> 1)  I want to have at least a b/g mix, n capable a bonus.
>
> 2)  Must support WEP encryption, but be able to handle a mix of WEP
>   
>> and
>> 
> WPA simultaneously.  (WEP for legacy clients that I haven't upgraded)
>
> 3)  Must play nice with Tranzeo CPQ and CPE200.
>
> You input is helpful.
>
> TIA,
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> 
>> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>   
>> 
>> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   

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

 
>> 
>> 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 5.6 GHZ?

[John Thomas]

On a Cisco 1231, Band 3 is 5.470 to 5.725 GHz.

John


George Morris wrote:
> Its part of 5.4. In Canada, you have to stay out of 5600-5650 due to weather
> radar, suspect the US may be much the same...
>
> George 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 6:22 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] 5.6 GHZ?
>
> My new MIMO radios have 5.6 GHZ on them, I don't recall that frequency
> being available in the US.  Is it?
>
> Forbes
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] routers

[John Thomas]

Cisco 851's run about $$300 and the 871's run about $450.

John Thomas


Travis Johnson wrote:
> I was hoping to find something a little more "user friendly", as the 
> company buying isn't real tech savvy. Something with a nice web gui 
> and easy to understand settings.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Butch Evans wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> I'm looking for a recommendation on an Ethernet router (two ports 
>>> or more) that is somewhere in between a $50 Linksys and a $500 
>>> Cisco ASA. Something that will do some basic QoS would be nice. Any 
>>> suggestions?
>>> 
>>
>> Mikrotik's 400 series routers are very good for this purpose.  They 
>> are, in my opinion, better in most respects than either of the 
>> devices you mention, but cost is between your numbers.  ;-)  You can 
>> get from 1 to 9 ethernet ports for less than $200 with all the power 
>> you need to run good QOS management.  Another alternative, though 
>> I'm not sure it would fit in the price model you mention, is 
>> ImageStream.  They have all the power of Linux with the benefit of 
>> tested package interactions.  VERY nice solution.
>>
>>   
> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE

[John Thomas]

These are $399 for a 24 port POE switch

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/AdvancedSmartSwitches/FS728TP.aspx


John


Mike Hammett wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations for rackmounted PoE injectors?  I was 
> looking at a Panduit PoE injecting 24 port patch panel, but I imagine that'll 
> cost an arm and a leg.  I'm not sure how many I'll need, but I'm guessing 
> around 30.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] good multicast wi-fi mesh solution?

[John Thomas]

The Cisco 1500 series products can do multicast, but they are pricey...

John Thomas


Rogelio wrote:
> I'm looking for wireless wi-fi mesh (preferably multiradio) solutions 
> that will support multicasting.
>
> I was looking for something along the lines of BelAir, but I'm told that 
> they have limited multicasting support.  Now I have to find out whether 
> or not other radios I might want to use outweigh some of the advantages 
> I'd get with BelAir (ruggedness, mesh capacity, radio sensitivity, etc)
>
> Any suggestions here would be greatly appreciated!
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers OT: Windows updates

[John Thomas]

They need WSUS installed on their site

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx

John Thomas


Scottie Arnett wrote:
> ...and from many website's you will never get this. The traffic congestion on 
> a 100 meg link can choke it down to less than 10 meg, with huge sites such as 
> myspace, yahoo, and many others...not saying that it happens often. I host 
> about 50 websites on a 3 meg connection for myself and others, and in 8 years 
> have NEVER heard a single complaint from my webhosters. A 10 meg download 
> from Chuck's customer to my web server will NEVER be realized. As Chuck says, 
> the bandwidth test is on a server that the customer directly connects to 
> across their wireless link, which is a true bandwidth check to that point. 
> The truth is in the advertising...If he says you will get 10 meg to any place 
> at any time, he might get busted for false adv. Not sure how he does it, but 
> if it is worded right, he will get many more customers and no 
> complaints...just cause of burstiness of web surfing.
>
> On another note, is their a way to cache or get a server closer to you for 
> windows updates? I have a hospital on our network that has 60+ PC's on the 
> inside. They are killing us with windows updates at certain times...like 
> Service Pack 3...?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:06:15 -0600
>
>   
>> Bigger number in the advertising and on your website gets the customer.
>> We are truthful.  The truth is, you will most likely see 10.2 Mbps any 
>> random time you choose to do a speed test.
>> You will also get wide open throttle most of the time you are clicking 
>> around web sites and checking your email.
>> DSL cannot do this.  Most Comcast accounts cannot do this.  Because we can 
>> do this, we get and keep customers.
>>  - Original Message - 
>>  From: Travis Johnson 
>>  To: WISPA General List 
>>  Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:30 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
>>
>>
>>  Again, I have to say, "up to 8Mbps" is completely different than selling a 
>> true "8Mbps". I can sell an "up to 8Mbps" service using 802.11b equipment 
>> too.
>>
>>  Maybe I'll start selling an "up to 100Mbps" service for the same price as 
>> all my other packages... ;)
>>
>>  Travis
>>  Microserv
>>
>>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
>> We sell up to 8Mbps on Canopy advantage without issues.  Nearly all our
>> customers are within a couple miles though and as long as they have less
>> than a -76, they get full speed.  Rarely do we have two customers doing full
>> speed at the same time on the same sector.  (Most we have on a sector is 50)
>> Maybe we are luckier than most
>> The main problem on Advantage (as well as other systems) is upload.
>> However, Canopy QoS is good and even saturated links don't affect VoIP
>> quality.  We sell a small business 8/2 package and when you see one of them
>> soaking upload for long periods and a couple customers running outbound P2P,
>> you start to worry a little but we haven't had any complaints due to
>> capacity.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>  Chuck,
>>
>> Not to rain on your parade but... I'm a little confused on how 10.2 mbps is
>> possible w/ Canopy. Advantage series peak capacity is just for short range
>> customers, and a large percentage of the capacity can be voided by by the
>> farther out slower non-advantage CPEs. When Up/down rate ratios have to be
>> pre-fined (for syncing) that limits the radio from using the ful capacity
>> of
>> the Radio.  Its one of the big reasons that we chose Trango 8 years ago
>> originally, so that it was infact possible to get full radio speed in one
>> direction  when it was available in low usage time, so we could quote
>> higher
>> speeds to business symetrical customers.
>>
>> Sure, if we consider 14mb real world advantage best case for Advantage
>> series, use all advantage series CPE, and do a 70 / 30 download to upload,
>> sure 10mbps peak downloads are possible for a single client, in that
>> scenario.  Provided that the WISP was fine with all other customers being
>> 100% STARVED at the time the one customer was monopolizing the peak
>> capacity.
>> We tried that once, and it was a big mistake because it caused latency to
>> sky 

Re: [WISPA] long term outlook of Cisco's outdoor mesh?

[John Thomas]

The 1500 series is being end of lifed, but they have the new 1520 
series, so I don't think they are quitting just yet.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5679/ps8368/product_data_sheet0900aecd8066a157.html

John Thomas

Rogelio wrote:
> I heard a rumor from someone who used to work at Cisco that they will 
> discontinue their outdoor mesh line, but I have yet to confirm this.
>
> Someone I know who is considering buying quite a bit of their outdoor 
> mesh stuff asked them if this was the case or not, and they said that 
> the Cisco rep would not answer or even commit to asking internally to 
> see what the long term outlook on the product line would be.
>
> Can anyone else here provide any info that might help confirm or deny 
> this rumor?
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email

[John Thomas]

Most ISP's  I know of charge $5 per account per month, so that seems to 
be an accepted price.

John


Josh Luthman wrote:
> Personally without an internet package I'd do 10 or 15
>
> On 11/6/08, Jerry Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> $5/month per address
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> Jerry Richardson
>> airCloud Communications
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:18 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
>>
>> I think we keep it alive for $5/month.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
>>
>>
>> 
>>> OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do.
>>> I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the AT&T DSL
>>> giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small
>>> monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he
>>> gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying
>>> leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about
>>> telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email
>>> accounts. How do you handle this?
>>> -RickG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vista VPN Question

[John Thomas]

Uncheck the " use default gateway on remote network" option in the Vista 
box.

John


Mike Hammett wrote:
> PPTP VPN connection.
>
> I'll see what is supported in this regard.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Matt Hardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vista VPN Question
>
>   
>> What type of VPN are you using?
>> Some allow publishing or advertising of routes to the client when the
>> VPN is established
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 10:59 -0800, Charles Wyble wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>   
 Is there a way to setup Vista so that only certain subnets are routed 
 over a VPN link?  It seems silly that a customer with a 16 meg Comcast 
 connection pushes all Internet traffic through the office's 2/2 
 connection.

 
>>> There is a route command you can use from the command prompt. :)
>>>
>>> Or do it via DHCP options if your running a full DHCP server
>>> (Cisco,Linux,Windows NT/200(x).
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Remote Powered Access Pont

[John Thomas]

Depending on where this is, you may be able to mount a small wind generator.

http://www.solardyne.com/air403wingen.html

John



Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
> I would use a 100 watt panel minimum.
> And a one month battery.  5watts * 24hours * 30 days = 3600 watt hour 
> battery
> If you are running a 24 volt system then you need 3600/24=150 aH battery.
> If you are running a 12 volt system, you need a 300 aH battery.
>
> You will pay about 30 cents per watt hour for a battery.  So $1080 for the 
> battery.
> You will pay about $5/watt for the panel, so $500 for the panel.
> Charge controllers are about $100 or less.
>
> If you build it this way it will always work.  You can put in half the 
> battery for half the price.  But then you have only two weeks of insurance 
> against bad weather.
>
> Never ever go below 10X the load for the panel, that will just barely cut it 
> in the sunniest of climates.
> Even then you will probably have to put in a back up generator and you will 
> be cycling the crap out of your batts causing them to only last a couple of 
> years.
>
> If you want 99.999% reliability you have to use a panel 24X the size of the 
> load (unless you have a tracking mount, then you can reduce that).
> I try to always use 20X panels and no less than a 2 week battery.  But even 
> then, a week or two of snow on the panels and gray skies every day can cause 
> an outage.
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Scott Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:33 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Remote Powered Access Pont
>
>
>   
>> I'm looking into setting up a remote access point/repeater.
>> Power requirements are 5W. No access to grid power.
>>
>> I was curious what you guys use for this type of thing?
>> I figure I need a 30W solar panel, controller, battery and enclosure.
>> How much should I expect to pay for a setup?
>> Is there anything available off the shelf?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information

[John Thomas]

http://www.nefiber.com/

Recently, I learned that American Fiber Systems has "InterCity Fiber 
Ring" that connects Las Vegas, Reno/Carson City, Boise and Salt Lake on 
a fully redundant OC-192 capacity backbone.
They aren't cheap on the low end at $2000/month for 5 meg burstable to 
10, but I image the price per meg drops quickly as the bandwidth goes up.
These guys do fiber in California

http://www.fiberinternetcenter.com/

They do 5 meg burstable to 10 at $1595-1995 but they told me they can do 
100 meg for about $7000 per month.

John

Mike Hammett wrote:
> Right.  I'm amazed at how many ISPs out there don't know who these providers 
> are, or the carriers outside of the RBOCs, or what connectivity 
> possibilities are in their areas.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Jason Hodge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:15 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>
>   
>> Right, it is not. It is a embedded content provider for web sites.
>>
>> J Hodge
>> 630.445.3779
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:53 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>
>> I'm not saying it's not possible, but I doubt that there is much much
>> BitTorrent traffic coming from Limelight.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Jason Hodge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:41 AM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>
>> 
>>> Sounds like bit torrent. What ports is the traffic on?
>>>
>>> J Hodge
>>> 630.445.3779
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:43 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So I grabbed all of Limelight Networks' IP blocks and created a queue on
>>> my MT core router. I am currently seeing about 8-9Mbps upload with only
>>> a 500kbps download. Any idea why I would be seeing so much "upload"
>>> traffic (coming from 10-15 different customers)?
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>   
 208.111.168.6


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com




 From: Travis Johnson
 Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:40 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information


 Do you happen to have the IP blocks it was coming from?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Since no one answered, I got NetFlix myself and added it to my XBox...
 the
 bandwidth is coming from Limelight Networks.

 Not quite as open as Youtube's "Yes, we will peer with you.", but they
 have
 an open peering policy  that'll happen when you're generating 1000
 Gbps
 of traffic.


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:04 AM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information

   Can anyone provide the ASN the streams come from?


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 --
 From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:42 PM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information

 In case you did not know, recently NetFlix and Microsoft teamed up 
 to
 provide video on-demand services to all of the XBox 360 users.  Not only
 can you start one of 12,000 videos in a matter of seconds on your
 computer, but you can also do this right on your Xbox 360, bringing it
 mainstream for many who have never used it.  Not to mention the super
 low cost of basically $9 bucks a month!

 I have been using it for a few weeks and since it came out on the XBox
 360 last Wednesday, I have streamed GIGs.  Soon as you hear, gigs, you
 may be interested to know what is required to maintain a high-end video
 stream.  So, I put together some numbers for everyone, in case you are
 interested in how much bandwidth this service uses!   A

 You can se

[WISPA] Eugene Fiber

[John Thomas]

Did this ever happen?

http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2001/07/12/UndefinedSection/Eweb-Will.Forge.Ahead.With.FiberOptic.Metronet-1974474.shtml

Is this of value?

http://www.pcinw.com/news/company_news.html

John

Mark Nash wrote:
> I'm having a heck of a time finding providers in my area (Eugene, OR) from
> which I can backhaul to my network.  Anyone know of a good site or have
> contacts for people who could quote in my area?  We're looking for 30-40
> megs at this point, but if we COULD get these 100meg ports at a reasonable
> rate, we'd go for it.
>
> Mark Nash
> UnwiredWest
> 78 Centennial Loop
> Suite E
> Eugene, OR 97401
> 541-998-
> 541-998-5599 fax
> http://www.unwiredwest.com
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>
>
>   
>> There deals clear down to $7/meg.
>> Ask vendors for a 2 year contract, GigE 100 Mbps burstable.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "John Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 10:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>
>>
>> 
>>> http://www.nefiber.com/
>>>
>>> Recently, I learned that American Fiber Systems has "InterCity Fiber
>>> Ring" that connects Las Vegas, Reno/Carson City, Boise and Salt Lake on
>>> a fully redundant OC-192 capacity backbone.
>>> They aren't cheap on the low end at $2000/month for 5 meg burstable to
>>> 10, but I image the price per meg drops quickly as the bandwidth goes
>>>   
> up.
>   
>>> These guys do fiber in California
>>>
>>> http://www.fiberinternetcenter.com/
>>>
>>> They do 5 meg burstable to 10 at $1595-1995 but they told me they can do
>>> 100 meg for about $7000 per month.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Right.  I'm amazed at how many ISPs out there don't know who these
>>>> providers
>>>> are, or the carriers outside of the RBOCs, or what connectivity
>>>> possibilities are in their areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> From: "Jason Hodge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:15 PM
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> Right, it is not. It is a embedded content provider for web sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> J Hodge
>>>>> 630.445.3779
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>   
> On
>   
>>>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:53 AM
>>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying it's not possible, but I doubt that there is much much
>>>>> BitTorrent traffic coming from Limelight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> From: "Jason Hodge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:41 AM
>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Sounds like bit torrent. What ports is the traffic on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J Hodge
>>>>>> 630.445.3779
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto