Fw: [WISPA] Ethernet over Power -- EOP

[Larry Yunker]

I'd avoid EOP like the plague.  We wasted 
quite a few hours trying to deploy some Speedstream units.  There are just 
too many unknowns in an electrical system.  You find multiple phases, you 
find circuit isolators, you find multiple main feeds, you find compressors and 
large electrical motors.  Any of these things can cause EOP (poor man's 
BPL) to fail.
 
Now as an alternative, I'd suggest looking into 
making the cable plant into one big antenna.  Pump WiFi through the 
building.I've never tried one of these, but if you have access to the MTU 
cable system, this looks interesting:
http://www.smarthome.com/6404HK.html
 
I know that Teletronics was selling something 
similar a few years ago but it seems to have vanished from their web 
site.
 
- Larry
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Victoria Proffer 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:40 
PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Ethernet over Power -- 
  EOP
  
  I have encountered 
  several MTU's that would use our service, however they would require ethernet 
  runs.
   
  Has anyone tried 
  EOP? Comments?
   
  I know that I saw 
  it in action, four years ago and was very impressed.
   
  Thanks.
   
  Victoria Proffer
  www.StLouisBroadBand.com
  314-974-5600
   
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] Towers and the Law

[Larry Yunker]

For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna which 
enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals.  I think that OTARD 
could be used to establish a similar right for a residential use of 
broadband access antennas as well.  However, OTARD doesn't do anything to 
give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) rights to install necessary 
antennas.  So, it sounds like you got lucky with your towers.


- Larry
- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Towers and the Law



We went and built 4 towers (rohn 25g, 50 footers each) on an island
where we needed to setup a wireless
Backbone around the island.

The town came blasting guns, we threw OTARD at them and they bought it.
My partner's a good sales guy, though :)

We ended up paying $250 per tower in fines, and the $75 permit fee, and
we went on our way.   YMMV :)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Owen Harrell
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:23 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Towers and the Law


I hope someone can help me on this. I believe that back in 1997 or 1998
a law was passed that prevented local governments from preventing tower
construction that would provide Internet service to remote areas. If
anyone knows of such a law or could at least point me in the right
direction, it would be greatly appreciated. I am in the process of
getting permits for new towers and I would just like to be prepared in
the unlikely case that the county was to turn me down for my permits.

Thanks in Advance

Owen Harrell
Technology Supervisor
Essex Computers
2 East 3rd Street
Sterling, IL 61081
(815)380-4267
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Fw: [WISPA] Towers and the Law

[Larry Yunker]

I stand corrected.  The actual text of the document indicates that the rules
apply:
"on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where
the user has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the
property"

So, if the antenna is situated on leased or owned land (residential or
commercial), OTARD can apply.  However, OTARD still only deals with 
end-user

antennas and not WISP broadcast service antennas.

- Larry

- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law


I wasn't arguing that point; I was arguing that OTARD doesn't only apply 
to residential property.


-Matt

Blake Bowers wrote:


As long as you quote, Larry is correct.  Look at the web page
you mention...   The subject line...

Over the Air RECEPTION devices rule.

Then it does make a little exception down lower in the page,

On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it 
applies


to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless 
signals.


This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001.


CUSTOMER-end antennas.

Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?

A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed 
at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers 
at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit 
signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations.




Then it pretty much squashes a WISP's antennas for providing service to 
multiple users.








- Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Towers and the Law



From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html...

Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential 
property?


A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial 
property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in 
the same way it applies to residential property.


-Matt

Larry Yunker wrote:

For the record, OTARD applies to residential rights to have an antenna 
which enables reception of TV broadcast/satelite signals.  I think 
that OTARD could be used to establish a similar right for a 
residential use of broadband access antennas as well.  However, OTARD 
doesn't do anything to give the PROVIDER (rather than the end-user) 
rights to install necessary antennas.  So, it sounds like you got 
lucky with your towers.


- Larry







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

[Larry Yunker]

It may seem like a 'no brainer' to you, but since when did an idea being
brain-dead-stupid stop the government from trying or actually enforcing 
it?


There is one common thread that runs through all things government does 
when

it is seeking to "help" the common folk - a complete and total lack of
common sense.

Does Mr Gonzales or the FBI care a whit about, or even KNOW anything about
what it would take to do what they ask?   No, of course not.


I doubt quite seriously that any heads of executive branch departments 
realize that broadband/internet services are sometimes/often? provided by 
companies with a staff of less than ten and gross revenues less than $1MM 
annually.  Most Washington beaurocratics live in a box and believe the line 
of bull that the Bell's and the Cable-Ops feed them.  That is to say that 
the likes of Ma-Bell or Comcast created the internet and there aren't very 
many of the rouge ISPs around anymore.  They might as well just treat the 
industry like there are 10 players: Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, 
Bell South, Qwest, Sprint, MSN, Earthlink, and AOL.  The rest of us are a 
bunch of renegades providing internet using tin-cans and string or 
pringles-cans and duct-tape.


Thats why government thinks nothing of mandating logging/snooping/data 
retention for ISPs.  They just don't recognize that the internet was formed 
by small mom-n-pop ISPs and that a fairly sizable chunk of internet access 
is still handled by the little guys.


- Larry




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Template - edit as see fit

[Larry Yunker]

I like the form except that I think you are short-changing the industry by 
quoting 1000 providers.  I suspect that there are still tens of thousands of 
ISPs and probably a few thousand WISPs.


- Larry

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Template - edit as see fit



If writing to Senators or House Representatives:
The Honorable (full name)

Date

Your name
Your company’s name
Your address line 1
Your address line 2
City, State, Zip

Dear Senator (last name): —OR— Dear Representative (last name):

As your constituent, with a vested interest in the protection of 
independent Internet service, I am deeply concerned about the Attorney 
General and FBI considering logging by ISPs.


While the general public perceives that the big ten (AT&T, Verizon, 
TimeWarner, Comcast, Cox, Qwest, MSN, EarthLink, BellSouth, and AOL) are 
the only ISPs in America, the truth is that there are about 1000 smaller 
independent ISP with a staff of 10 or less people who are providing 
broadband internet to about 2% of the US population. (We are also 
providing quite a few jobs, too).


On any given ISP system in a month, there are many, many gigabytes of 
traffic. According to MSNBC, "Internet users around the world send an 
estimated 60 billion e-mails every day."


How would a small ISP such as myself log all the email and sites that my 
customers visit? Do you realize how much space, power, hardware, expense, 
and labor that would require? How do we secure that information? What 
happens if that information -- to be stored for 24 months -- gets damaged, 
pilfered, or lost?


There are also problems with the IP address system, whereby many smaller 
ISPs do not give a specific, static IP number to a user. The IP address 
system, IPv4 is running out of numbers, so many ISPs conserve them by 
using a system called NAT, that has some inherent security for the network 
and users built-in. But NAT would not allow a traceable log of data that 
the AG & FBI are looking for.


Please be watchful that these types of requirements, while perhaps 
possible by the big 10, would be burdensome to the other 99% of the 
providers in the US.



Sincerely,


Your name

Contact information:

http://www.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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Fw: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? - small ISPs built

[Larry Yunker]

Not only true in DC, but to the general public as well, Larry.

Excuse the language... but it seems appropriate...


Sh*t flows downhill ---> Washington --> Media --> Public

- Larry



Larry Yunker wrote:

I doubt quite seriously that any heads of executive branch departments 
realize that broadband/internet services are sometimes/often? provided 
by companies with a staff of less than ten and gross revenues less 
than $1MM annually.  Most Washington beaurocratics live in a box and 
believe the line of bull that the Bell's and the Cable-Ops feed them.  
That is to say that the likes of Ma-Bell or Comcast created the 
internet and there aren't very many of the rouge ISPs around anymore.  
They might as well just treat the industry like there are 10 players: 
Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, Bell South, Qwest, Sprint, MSN, 
Earthlink, and AOL.  The rest of us are a bunch of renegades providing 
internet using tin-cans and string or pringles-cans and duct-tape.


Thats why government thinks nothing of mandating logging/snooping/data 
retention for ISPs.  They just don't recognize that the internet was 
formed by small mom-n-pop ISPs and that a fairly sizable chunk of 
internet access is still handled by the little guys.


- Larry


--
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] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento

[Larry Yunker]

Sounds to me like the original "contract" wasn't a contract.  Otherwise, 
MobilePro would have grounds for breach and there doesn't appear to be any 
lawsuit pending.  I'm guessing that MobilePro was in the process of 
providing a "proof-of-concept" in order to secure a contract.


- Larry

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

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento



Interesting that the city changed the contract after the fact.
George


Peter R. wrote:

MobilePro Ditches Muni Mesh Project
http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17055.html

Wireless data specialist MobilePro this morning walked away from its 
contract to build a citywide Wi-Fi mesh in Sacramento, Calif. - only two 
months after the first test system went live - in what looks to be an 
acrimonious disagreement with city officials over the economics behind 
the deal.


MobilePro says the city blindsided it with new contract requirements that 
would require it to give away high-speed service for which it had planned 
to charge. In addition, the company says the city has withdrawn 
guarantees that the company would serve as "anchor tenant" for the 
network in order to provide the revenue to provide lower-speed service to 
economically disadvantaged residents.


MobilePro won the Sacramento contract last year, beating Motorola and 
AT&T (then known as SBC) for the business. The plan called for a mesh 
that initially covered Sacramento's downtown, Old Town and state-capital 
areas - an area of about 10 square miles - with the entire city to 
eventually be built out in phases.


MobilePro was to provide various free and fee-based services with secure 
high-speed data, voice and video throughout the planned coverage area. 
Subscriptions were to be sold on an annual, monthly, daily and hourly 
basis. Multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) were to be allowed to 
sell their services over the network. The entire project, MobilePro says, 
was to be based on its massive project in Arizona, which started in the 
city of Tempe and which has since grown to include neighboring 
municipalities to create a muni mesh sprawling across 187 miles of 
Arizona, the largest so far seen (TelecomWeb news break, March 16).


After what MobilePro termed "a lengthy permitting process," it finally 
launched its first pilot test in April in an area around the city's 
Caesar Chavez Plaza park. The pilot launch included a ribbon-cutting 
ceremony, with local politicians mouthing predictable platitudes about 
"cutting the wire" and the importance of the whole thing to the city and 
its "residents, students, visitors and businesses."


Meanwhile, things weren't going smoothly behind the scenes. MobilePro 
says the city sent it "a counter proposal requiring that the company 
establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost exclusively 
by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city serving as an 
anchor tenant."


Such a demand directly conflicts with the original plan, according to a 
.PDF presentation on the Sacramento City Web site. In that presentation, 
the city outlined a project with free 56 Kb/s service, but residential 
service priced at $20 month for 1 Mb/s and $30 per month for 1.5 Mb/s; 
higher prices were detailed for business
service or service that includes VoIP. There also was a somewhat sneaky 
price plan of $4 for one hour of service - an emerging tactic in the 
industry that can zing a "single shot" user with what is really an 
astronomical fee for a few bits of data - but just $6 for an entire day 
or $10 for a week.


"Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz., model, MobilePro's 
original proposal provided for limited-area, limited-bandwidth, no-cost 
service but required higher- bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly 
fee," the company says, adding it "also offered an alternative designed 
to close the 'digital divide' to the city's low-income quintile of 
residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this 
proposal was likewise rejected by the city."


Thus, the company says, it has now rejected the city as a customer.

MobilePro President and COO Jerry Sullivan, in a prepared statement 
explaining the decision, said, "It is our understanding based on the 
final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require 
MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all 
residents and have the company rely primarily on
advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based 
upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi 
broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North 
America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported 
business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a 
restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term 
plans for both the res

Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

[Larry Yunker]

Before you talk about VoIP technology/deployment issues, you might want to 
address your deployment amechanism.  What technology are you planning to use 
in order to deploy your broadband?  Wireless, I would assume?  If so, what 
hardware?  Choosing the right type of hardware on the last-mile is critical 
to making VoIP work.


After you decide on a robust wireless system, you can choose among many VoIP 
solutions.  VoIP can range from simple POTS-Like services (dial-tone, 
caller-id, call-waiting) to full PBX key-system like services with 
conference-calling, automated attendant, intra-office transfer, etc.  You 
can even decide how much of the system you want to maintain versus how much 
you want to outsource.  With certain open source VoIP solutions available, 
you can build your own VoIP server or at the other extreme, you can simply 
purchase VoIP SIP-compliant phones or ATA's and use a completely outsourced 
gateway.  You should probably consider where you want to be the VAR and 
where you simply want to be a reseller.  Is the primary "value" of your 
service going to be broadband-access or voice-services?


Larry Yunker
Wireless Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering


With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines to 
support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on VoIP as 
a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in the planning 
stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium businesses (no 
residential) in an area that is served with other technologies (DSL).  I 
am currently working part time doing IT for a group of small businesses, 
and was just about sold on a WISP last year that offered a voice/data plan 
as a package that would have saved money.  We ended up not switching after 
reading about some of the pending lawsuits against the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services to 
my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will be 
reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to back these 
up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier to sell a highly 
reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's providing more than 
just access for lunchtime web browsing.  Integrating voice and data will 
both save the customer money and justify the cost of the "dedicated" 
Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as a 
reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any PBX-like 
features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, things to avoid, 
and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick
--
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] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA stands for the interests of 
Verizon, AT&T Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of 
which incidentally are owned by AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs).  With 
statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out 
for the interests unlicensed WISPs.


If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to "controlling your 
own network", you have missed the entire point.  Without effective net 
neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet and 
tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it.  It will be one 
more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay 
tariffs to get their subscribers access to "premium" content.  It will drive 
the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because 
those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only ones that have 
"access" to everything on the internet.


- Larry Yunker

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality



WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450>

The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the pressure 
groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
break, /June 15).


Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
*NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, president of 
*Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an "e-forum" for debate but 
clearly positions itself among the vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA 
claims its motive is to promote growth and innovation in advanced 
communications over broadband wireless by protecting the business from 
net-neutrality regulation


"With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it is imperative that 
wireless broadband providers remain free to manage their own networks," 
said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. "Net-neutrality 
regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more competitive 
broadband choices to all Americans. Our member companies are investing 
heavily in WiMAX  or other '4G' types of 
next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part 
of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem."


Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable 
Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable & 
Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications 
Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *AT&T*, 
*BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest  
Communications International*, *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon 
 Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*.


With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless 
broadband companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would 
discourage investment, adding, "More innovation and competition are the 
antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
micromanagement."


The development comes after key *House* committees and a full House floor 
vote passed a new video-franchise and telecom bills after defeating 
repeated amendment attempts to codify stronger net-neutrality laws and to 
give the *Federal Communications Commission* greater powers.


The debate over net neutrality - with many pro and con pressure groups 
frantically trying to get attention - now turns to the *Senate *Committee 
on Commerce Science and Technology, where a massive communications-reform 
bill also allegedly lacks strong net-neutrality provisos as well as to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering separate net neutrality 
bills in an antitrust, anti-monopoly context (/see related stories in 
today's Telecom Policy Report/).


The Senate Commerce Committee may mark up its draft on Thursday (reschuled 
from tomorrow)  while Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust, 
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights that same afternoon has slated a 
hearing on the impact of the proposed AT&T/BellSouth merger (in light of 
consolidating telcos becoming a factor in the net-neutrality fight).


--


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/p

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

Dave,
 
I can see your points and I agree that 
OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list.  
Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enable backbone 
providers of the internet to weed out the smaller providers by 
deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc.  I think that 
the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would 
differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality.
 
Since the success of the internet has long 
been based on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I 
think the goal should be to prohibit backbone providers from discriminating 
based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic.  
This means that in an ideal scenario, the 
government would prevent the likes of L3/AT&T/Verizon from even looking at 
the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone.  They don't need 
to know what the traffic is.  Rather, their business is to get that 
traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing 
capacity.  They should not be positioned to decide WHO gets to 
have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time.  If 
this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone 
providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor 
should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to 
themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their 
competitors).  
 

I realize that taking this stance against 
"Tiered-Access Internet" forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will 
lead to true end-to-end QoS on the public internet.  Yet, 
I'd rather have today's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather 
than "tomorrow's internet" monopolized by 
Ma-Bell. 
 
Please note: I think that last-mile providers 
ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO 
THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary.  If you want to 
block your own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or 
downloading movies that should be your prerogative.  Perhaps 
you should be required to disclose this "limited-access" internet service 
to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your own policies 
regarding the traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS.  I see no 
reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond 
requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies.  I figure it 
this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content 
to/from your clients, the clients usually have to opportunity to switch to 
another provider.  IF you are the only provider of service in the area, 
then one could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors 
to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers.
 
The core policy reason to regulate backbone 
providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the 
globe without unnecessary limitations.  This same policy reason does not 
apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can 
all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our 
packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet!  The real question 
is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL 
difference.
 
- Larry
 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Sovereen 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:37 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
  position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
  networks how they want is the right approach.  Net neutrality legislation 
  opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
  equal access to all content on the Internet.
   
  How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P 
  traffic separate from other traffic?  I'll bite... I am.
   
  How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
  traffic separate from other traffic?  I'll bite.  I am.  And I 
  only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
  traffic from Vonage or anyone else.
   
  How many WISPs on this list are filtering 
  NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious?  I'll bite... I am 
  again.
   
  Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued 
  over, but I hope you see my point.
   
  These controls are important for me to manage my 
  network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
   
  Net neutrality takes these controls 
  away.
   
  Dave
   
  989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
   
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
   
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Larry Yunker 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WIS

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

AT&T and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long 
before it becomes imminent.


Where did the 17 month timeframe come from?  AFAIK, without Net Neutrality 
legislation, there is nothing stopping the big guys from pulling the rug out 
from under the rest of us TODAY.  If you are suggesting that they MUST peer 
because of a RFC or contract, you are mistaken.  RFC's have no binding 
authority at law and contracts can and often are breached if the result of 
the breach will bring the breaching party a windfall.  If there is one thing 
that was made abundently clear in Contracts class it is that there are no 
punitive damages in contracts sometimes it just makes sense to breach.


If AT&T can make billions in tiered-access charges by de-peering with the 
rest of the globe they will and they will do it as soon as they feel the 
time is right.  No RFC and no contract will limit them.  Until there is a 
LAW with real teeth prohibiting de-peering they can do whatever they want. 
(Real teeth = more than a grant to the FCC to investigate potential abuse. 
Oversight committees are useless without standards to uphold IMHO.)


- Larry

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

ously doubt 
that.   
 
Dave
 
989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
     
[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
 
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA 
  General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs 
  In Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors..  the WCA 
  stands for the interests of Verizon, AT&T Wireless, Sprint, 
  and the other big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are 
  owned by AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs).  With 
  statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be 
  looking out for the interests unlicensed WISPs.If you 
  think that blocking net neutrality is the path to "controlling your 
  own network", you have missed the entire point.  Without 
  effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos 
  will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the traffic that 
  flows through it.  It will be one more nail in the coffin of 
  the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get 
  their subscribers access to "premium" content.  It will drive 
  the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and 
  CableCos because those networks will be the only "fast" networks 
  or the only ones that have "access" to everything on the 
  internet.- Larry Yunker- Original Message - 
  From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "WISPA 
  General List" <wireless@wispa.org>Sent: 
  Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality> WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality>> http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html> 
  <http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450>>> 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
  > down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of 
  the pressure > groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress 
  > * on the polarizing issue 
  (/TelecomWeb news > break, /June 15).>> 
  Representing about 250 companies in broadband wireless carriage and 
  > manufacturing, WCA has teamed with the recently formed 
  > *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott Cleland, 
  president of > *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an 
  "e-forum" for debate but > clearly positions itself among the 
  vocal anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA > claims its motive is 
  to promote growth and innovation in advanced > communications 
  over broadband wireless by protecting the business from > 
  net-neutrality regulation>> "With spectrum a scarce and 
  expensive resource, it is imperative that > wireless broadband 
  providers remain free to manage their own networks," > said WCA 
  President Andrew Kreig in a prepared statement. "Net-neutrality 
  > regulation would discourage innovation and investment in more 
  competitive > broadband choices to all Americans. Our member 
  companies are investing > heavily in WiMAX 
   or other '4G' types of > 
  next-generation broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are 
  part > of the competitive solution, not part of the regulatory 
  problem.">> Other supporters of NETCompetition.org 
  include the *American Cable > Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless 
  Association*, the *National Cable & > Telecommunications* 
  *Association*, the *United States Telecommunications > 
  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, *Alltel*, *AT&T*, 
  > *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest 
   > Communications International*, 
  *Sprint*, *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon > 
   Communications* and *Verizon 
  Wireless*.>> With the WCA's membership, Cleland remarks 
  that next-generation wireless > broadband companies are 
  concerned net neutrality regulation would > discourage 
  investment, adding, "More innovation and competition are the > 
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
  > micromanagement.">> The development comes after 
  key *House* committees and a full House floor > vote

Re: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik Help

[Larry Yunker]

Ron,
 
When the number of active connections for any 
single user exceeds about 10 to 15 simultaneous connections, you generally have 
one of two things occurring.  Either the subscriber has been infected by 
some sort of virus/spyware or the customer is running some sort of peer-to-peer 
networking software (i.e. Kaaza, winMX, Limewire, Bittorrent, etc, etc, 
etc).  
 
Either of these situations will result in increased 
latency and decreased overall available network throughput on the Canopy 
systems.  On the Tranzeo system, the effect is far worse.  Since 
Tranzeo is 802.11b based, there is no polling mechanism to ensure timely 
delivery of packets.  the effect of a continuous streams 
of outbound traffic is dropped packets.  Dropped packets 
means timed-out web pages and dropped email sessions.  It gets far worse 
when you start dealing with games and VoIP.  Even 1% packet loss can result 
in unusable games.  Likewise, the very slightest IP interruption can make 
VoIP sessions experience jitter, echoing, and garbled signal.
 
It is important that you determine the specific 
customers that are causing the excessive streams.  Look at the ports in use 
and the destination addresses.  Determine if the traffic is likely P-t-P or 
an infection.  If it's P-t-P, you should be able to control the volume of 
the traffic by using the P-t-P throttling mechanisms available through the 
Mikrotik software.  If it's an infection, you should disassociate the 
user from your AP's until the infection can be resolved.  If you simply 
firewall the outbound traffic, you probably won't solve 
anything.  Many infections cause the PC to continuously send out 
packets regardless of whether those packets ever arrive at a valid 
destination.  Therefore, the infection will keep sending/flooding your 
AP even if you block the subscriber from successfully reaching the internet 
via a Mikrotik firewall.
 
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
WISP Advantage 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ron 
  Wallace 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:24 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik 
  Help
  
  To all,
   
  I have some abusive users, when I look at IP 
  Firewall Connections I find a some users with over a hundred (100) 
  instances listed in the source address column.  I think its flooding my 
  network.  I have 2 T1's and 81 users.  We're growing faster than I 
  can install new customers.
   
  I am using Canopy 900, Canopy 2.45, & 
  Tranzeo 2.45.  I have activated the SM, SNMP, BOOTP Server and Client 
  filters on the canopy devices.
   
  How can I limit the number of active instances 
  of these abusive users on the Mikrotik?
   Ron Wallace Hahnron, 
  Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 
  Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] Ping

[Larry Yunker]

Ping?


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] fcc committee survey

[Larry Yunker]

For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband
services.  

My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your
broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC
in that service area.  In other words, telephone companies that service
rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments.
However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide
broadband services.

- Larry

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd

like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try 
to create movement on.

Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam





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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

[Larry Yunker]

Your options for recourse are going to depend largely upon the state in
which you operate.  However, most states are now recognizing either in
common law or via statute some of the following:

Tortious Interference with Business Relations
Tortious Interference with Contract
Unfair Trade Practices
Consumer Protection Rights

Note that these are all CIVIL remedies.  I doubt that you would have much
luck getting CRIMINAL remedies since the D.A.'s offices rarely have the
resources to chase down their current case load.

The key to ANY of these remedies will be to establish the intentional and
malicious nature of your competitor's actions.  If you can show that the
competitor has no clients in the area and is just blasting interference for
the sake of taking out your system, you might have something to work with,
but if your competitor can show that he has even one client in receiving
service from the offending radio system, you would have a lot harder time
getting a judge to believe that the actions are improper competition rather
than "natural competition".

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant / Law Student / Ex-WISP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

DISCLAIMER: The message is not to be construed as legal advise for actual
legal advise you need to speak to a licensed attorney within your
jurisdiction.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies 
out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in 
order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable 
evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know 
of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made 
in state court and state laws do vary from state to state.

Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior 
please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used?

Thanks in advance,

jack

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com







** 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Larry Yunker]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

> What is considered a large number of connections?
> How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's
> typical usage.
> Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is
being
> abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community
> WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton?
> Is it possible that we need to start charge for "number of connections"
> instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed?

My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online.  My Linksys DD-WRT
based router had a problem.  It had max ports set out 512.  When my PC
then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit
that limit.  Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it.

So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users.



Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds,
he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect
on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based
systems).  So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting
resource availability for that sort of application.

- Larry




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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Larry Yunker]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

> > What is considered a large number of connections?
> > How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a
user's
> > typical usage.
> > Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is
> being
> > abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small
community
> > WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton?
> > Is it possible that we need to start charge for "number of connections"
> > instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed?
>
> My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online.  My Linksys DD-WRT
> based router had a problem.  It had max ports set out 512.  When my PC
> then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit
> that limit.  Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it.
>
> So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users.
>
> 
>
> Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few
seconds,
> he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe
effect
> on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based
> systems).  So as a network operator, you may still be interested in
limiting
> resource availability for that sort of application.

We run Canopy.  When a gamer does this they usually find a server and
do not have to run another scan for quite some time.  Where p2p does
this crap all day long.  P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have
limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in
rural areas where bandwidth is pricey.


Good Point The duration of a "scan" would certainly have an effect on
the impact on the network.  If the scan is completed within a few seconds
then the network disruption might go unnoticed.  It sounds like the solution
here would not be to limit the number of simultaneous connections but rather
to limit the number of sustained simultaneous connections.

- Larry
  




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] CALEA

[Larry Yunker]

Comments Below...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frank Muto
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA

I have a question though you may or may be able to answer it. In point 1,
you said you gave the LEA information on how to 
word their subpoena? Was this knowledge based on an attorneys consult? I'll
assume it may have been unless you are an 
attorney yourself.

Secondly, why would an attorney or anyone provide "legal" consult to the
LEA? The DOJ has all the required information any 
LEA needs to obtain the information they need in an investigation. Most of
it is basically fill in the blank and the forms 
have multiple Q&A to write up the subpoena.

Having gone through enough of this over the past couple years, I have doubts
that helping an LEA is in your best interest. 
How do you warrant or have legal standing on telling an LEA that their
subpoena does not have the correct information for the 
request?

It is up to the LEA to get the proper legal consult they need when writing
up a subpoena and or warrant to present to the 
court.

- Comments --

If I am not mistaken, when you are being asked to provide information in a
legal matter in which you are not a named-party in the legal action, you are
being placed in the position of a witness.

If a witness divulges information which proves to be harmful to one of the
parties in the action AND if the information which is divulged is NOT
protected as being required under subpoena, then the witness could potential
open themselves up for a civil lawsuit with claims of libel, slander,
defamation, wrongful interference, etc.

So, it is NOT uncommon or unwise for a witness to seek legal counsel before
disclosing information under a subpoena.  I don't know if a witness' lawyer
could "coach" the requesting party in the wording of the subpoena.  On the
other hand, I'm quite certain that IF a witness felt that the information
that they held was pertinent and the witness wanted clarification on whether
they could divulge the information under the subpoena, they could request a
hearing before the judge in the pending matter.  The judge could do an
in-camera review to determine what stays and what goes.  Then it's up to the
judge to tell the requesting party if and to what extent their subpoena
needs to be modified.

Larry Yunker
Network Consultant & Law Student
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Disclaimer: The information contained in this message is not to be
considered legal advice.  I am not a lawyer (yet) and therefore I am not in
a position to provide legal advice.  






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] Prevailing Wage

[Larry Yunker]

According to the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, "public utilities" are exempt
from the prevailing wage.

"Public works" does not include work done directly by any public utility
company, whether or not done under public supervision or direction, or paid
for wholly or in part out of public funds.

In theory, you could get set up as a utility and then claim exemption from
the act.  The downside is that becoming a public utility might introduce
more expense/overhead than is avoided by paying the prevailing wage.

Also note that you don't have to pay the prevailing wage to anyone that
works on the project.  Just to those persons who are in the class of workers
that are covered by the act:  laborers, workers and mechanics.  I would
argue that administrators, technicians, engineers, etc. are not in that
category.  I realize that this doesn't help a lot because you probably don't
want to be paying your tower climber more than your network administrator.

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Former Illinois WISP
Current Ohio Attorney

Disclaimer: The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice but rather
a layperson discussion of a business topic.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Nathan Stooke
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Prevailing Wage

Hello,

We are working on several wireless and security camera proposals for
municipalities in our area, Illinois.  The question has been raised about
Prevailing Wage and if we have to pay it.  When looking into it, it looks
like we do.  All $44/hour to any one that works on the project.

I do not want to get people all up in arms about the Prevailing Wage
act.  That is a discussion we can have at a WISPA show after hours.  :)

Has anyone had to deal with this?  Did you get a for sure answers
yes or no?   Where you audited and survived?

Thanks   
___
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] WISPCON?

[Larry Yunker]

Last I had heard, Michael decided that due to the state of the economy,
October 2009 was probably not the right time to hold another conference.  I
know he has interest in scheduling another conference, but the timing must
be right to draw sufficient interest & demand.

Regards,
Larry Yunker


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPCON?

I take it that it's not actually happening "OCTOBER 2009" like the site
says?




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] [Indiana] Sales Tax

[Larry Yunker]

Without conducting a thorough analysis, I did find a few interesting notes
in 47 U.S.C.S. 151: 

 

47 U.S.C.S. § 151 contains a moratorium on taxes generally.  However the
statute contains a long list of exclusions.

 

For instance, a state may tax if the state was already taxing internet
services prior to the enactment Oct. 21, 1998.  States that imposed a sales
tax on internet service prior to that date can still charge the tax.

 

Likewise, taxes enacted by state statute prior to November of 2003 and
imposed upon internet services are grandfathered despite the moratorium.

 

Telecommunications taxes appear to be subject to a loophole and can be
imposed (although the statute is silent as to what qualifies as
telecommunications).

 

But perhaps most interesting is subsection (e) which allows a state to
charge taxes to any internet provider who fails to offer “customer (either
for a fee or at no charge) screening software that is designed to permit the
customer to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to
minors”.  All WISPs would be wise to start offering some sort of net nanny
type software so that the states don’t jump on the opportunity to tax.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker II, Esq.

Barkan & Robon, Ltd.

 

 

  _  

From: indiana-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:indiana-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:46 AM
To: Indiana WISP Discussion
Subject: [Indiana] Sales Tax

 

Here is the info I finally got from the state.

 

Steve Barnes

Manager

PCS-WIN <http://www.pcswin.com/> 

RC-WiFi <http://www.rcwifi.com/>  Wireless Internet Service

 

Mr. Barnes:

 

First, I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail.  With regard
to wireless Internet services, Indiana is precluded from taxing such
services for sales tax under 47 U.S.C. s. 151 note. (the Internet Tax
Freedom Act).  Indiana did not enforce sales tax on purely Internet services
prior to the enactment of this act; thus, Indiana is now precluded from
taxing Internet services until at least 2014.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

 

Thank you,

 

Jeff Raney

Legal Division

Indiana Department of Revenue

 

 

 

 

---

From: Steve Barnes[SMTP:st...@pcswin.com]

Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:01:34 PM

To: DOR Webmaster

Subject: AFSS - Legal Division

Auto forwarded by a Rule

 

Your Name: Steve Barnes

Email Address: st...@pcswin.com

Subject: Legal Division

Your Comments:

I am a small Wireless Internet Service Provider in Randolph CountyIndiana. I
was told that due to this being a Internet Service and nottelephone or other
communication that salestax does not need to becollected. I request a
WRITTEN OPINION.

 




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] Partnership Agreements

[Larry Yunker]

Robert,

A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you
are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success.
There are a lot of considerations:

How to split profits
How to split losses
How to elect a board of directors
How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board)
How to handle stalemates
If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will be
required and how will those future contributions effect equity
Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of
the company?
Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the
partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?)
Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the
company?  
Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be "fired" as
an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company?
What happens when you want to add new partners?
What happens when a partner wants to cash-out?
Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the partners
agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners?
What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy?
How does the company get valued if a buyout is required?
Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to
resolve legal issues?
What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete? 
Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees?  Can a (ex)
partner solicit your customers?  For how long after a breakup must an
(ex)partner remain out of the field?  Is a (ex)partner limited only from
providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web
design, computer repair, etc.

The list goes on and on.  I've handled several partnership/shareholder
agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of
the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect yourself
and your potential business partners from future disagreements.  Trust only
goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it does
you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis.

Regards,
Larry Yunker II, Esq.
Barkan & Robon, Ltd.
(419) 897-6500


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner up
with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load.
I'm leery, however of getting screwed.  (My father was in business for years
with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to the
point they were out of business)  A requirement of a partner, for me, would
be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the extra
weight of the new guy.  The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with
only dollar signs in their eyes.  Not a good fit for me, I'm not about cash
in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about
money all the time scares the hell out of me.

 

I now have a guy who looks good.  Has the assets and interest.  Has 3 small
towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office,
construction equipment, trailers, etc.  He understands there won't be any
money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're
doing.  He says that's fine.   He also has the billing and general paperwork
experience and background.  (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and
paperwork)  Looks good so far.  The construction equipment would be a help,
no more begging things from farmers and making deals to get a hole dug.  His
current gig is as an electrical engineer, travels around the world as a
contractor overseeing the repair and programming of robotics as well as the
installation of the equipment.  He says he's tired of being gone all the
time and wants to stay in one area in a field that will be somewhat related
and complicated enough that he won't get bored.  Hm..

 

I've been to his home a few times, even put in a private wireless connection
between him and his neighbor a mile away.  Seems like a decent guy.  

 

Now he wants to sit down and work things out on paper.  Any advice on things
to cover my ass on?  Things some of you wished you had down on paper when
you started out?  I'm not a partner kinda guy, my business plan is always in
my head, I make much of it up as I go along and I jump in and just do things
myself so this is new territory.(However, my total lack of organization
is due to the previously stated operation of the business plan)

 

I know some will yell to not take on a partner and I'd be one of them

Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.

[Larry Yunker]

After reading this thread, I something gnawed at me... it did not seem
correct that a post-dated check would fall outside of the bad check laws.
So without doing a lot of research, I would contend that knowingly or
intentionally passing post-dated checks on a closed account is most
certainly actionable in Ohio.

In Ohio a post-dated check is a negotiable instrument just like any other
check.  The problem is that the time for presentment of the check is the
post-dated date, so if you present the check for payment prior to the
post-date, you don't have recourse for the breach of the payor's guarantee.
See R.C. 1303.13.  If you present the check for payment on or after the
post-date, then you have recourse for breach of the payor's guarantee. Under
R.C. 2913.11, you can file against the payor for passing bad checks.  R.C.
2913.11 is held to be applicable to postdated checks.  See State v.
DeNicola, 163 Ohio St. 140 (1955).  The civil remedy for bad checks is the
greater of triple the amount of the check or $200.00 plus attorney's fees
and administrative/court costs in some cases.

Regards,
Larry Yunker, Esq.
Barkan & Robon, Ltd.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:08 PM
To: lakel...@gbcx.net; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.

In Ohio, not sure of other states, but if you write a check with a date that
is not the date you write it, it becomes an IOU.  We had a guy in the area
who was writing checks on a closed account and was putting the next month as
the date.  Had the right day and year but post dated them all for the next
month.  How could he prove it?  He was taken to court and all the stamps on
the check from the bank was in the month before the month on the check.
Loop hole.  He got off and the people with the bum checks have to sue him as
a debtor.  Good luck on that one!  He was smarter than the system.

Yes, we have one of the checks.  40 bucks,





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:53 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.

That will not work. Federal banking laws make it illegal to write any other
date other tan the present on a bearer instrument

That's an uphill battle. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Ryan Spott 
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:34:13 
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.

In WA state they are trying to make it a law that no cash leaves the
scrapyard. Only checks dated 2 days in the future.

Makes it harder to turn a quick buck on metal "recycling"

ryan

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Robert West 
wrote:
> It's funny but I bet that happens.  Good example of that is stolen man
hole
> covers to be sold at the scrap yard, road signs and on the metal light
> poles, the little covers at the bottom that cover the electrical
> access..  They were stolen so much that now they don’t even come with
> them.  This sort of thing is why they now require picture ID when you sell
> your junk at the yard.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Marco Coelho
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:08 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.
>
> Hey someone was on my roof and stole my dish!
>
> Get your livestock offa my roof!
>
> mc
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>> I have a guy who pays his bill in dish mounts.  $2 per mount delivered.
>> We only accept the ones that are clean and reusable.  He drops by every
>> couple of weeks with 40-50 of them.  Looks like they were removals from
>> Dish/Direct TV.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck Hogg
>> Shelby Broadband
>> 502-722-9292
>> ch...@shelbybb.com
>> http://www.shelbybb.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Robert West
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:36 AM
>> To: sarn...@info-ed.com; 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.
>>
>> Scottie,
>>
>> I've had some minor success by talking to a local metal scrap yard.
>> It's a
>> pretty good sized one, they put up a small sign at the pay window saying
>> that if they get any tower sections to not crush or bend them.  If they
>> get
>> a get sections they call and I go over.  It's usually old American Tower
>> 8
>> foot sections, like TV tower, but some are p

Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

[Larry Yunker]

Marlon,

Thanks for the kind words.  I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that list
members know/knew that I used to run an ISP/WISP.   Believe me... there are
days now when I'm cooped up in the office that I miss being out there
climbing towers, hanging antennas, installing routers and looking for the
next grain-leg to expand to.   

Regards,
Larry

-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:00 AM
To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

For those that don't know him, Larry is an ex wisp all around good guy.

He's now a lawyer but I try hard not to hold that against him.

Did I say that I've known him for years and he's a great guy?  Litterally 
one of the founders of the WISP business.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements


> Robert,
>
> A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you
> are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success.
> There are a lot of considerations:
>
> How to split profits
> How to split losses
> How to elect a board of directors
> How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board)
> How to handle stalemates
> If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will 
> be
> required and how will those future contributions effect equity
> Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of
> the company?
> Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the
> partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?)
> Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the
> company?
> Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be "fired" 
> as
> an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company?
> What happens when you want to add new partners?
> What happens when a partner wants to cash-out?
> Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the 
> partners
> agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners?
> What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy?
> How does the company get valued if a buyout is required?
> Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to
> resolve legal issues?
> What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete?
> Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees?  Can a 
> (ex)
> partner solicit your customers?  For how long after a breakup must an
> (ex)partner remain out of the field?  Is a (ex)partner limited only from
> providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web
> design, computer repair, etc.
>
> The list goes on and on.  I've handled several partnership/shareholder
> agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of
> the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect 
> yourself
> and your potential business partners from future disagreements.  Trust 
> only
> goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it 
> does
> you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis.
>
> Regards,
> Larry Yunker II, Esq.
> Barkan & Robon, Ltd.
> (419) 897-6500
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert West
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>
> I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner 
> up
> with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load.
> I'm leery, however of getting screwed.  (My father was in business for 
> years
> with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to 
> the
> point they were out of business)  A requirement of a partner, for me, 
> would
> be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the 
> extra
> weight of the new guy.  The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with
> only dollar signs in their eyes.  Not a good fit for me, I'm not about 
> cash
> in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about
> money all the time scares the hell out of me.
>
>
>
> I now have a guy who looks good.  Has the assets and interest.  Has 3 
> small
> towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office,
> construction equipment, trailers, etc

Re: [WISPA] Would like to purchase some RF glasses...

[Larry Yunker]

Is there anything metal on the roof between the tower and your mount?  You
might be getting multipath off the roof (if it's metal), metal flashing, a
vent pipe, or any number of other objects.  Just a theory but by raising
or lowering the antenna, you might be changing the angle of incidence and
thereby avoiding a multipath bounce.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of John Vogel
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Would like to purchase some RF glasses...

The terrain between the AP and the CPE is such that I would ordinarily
consider it a slam-dunk. Standing there on the ground next to the house
and looking at the (almost) clear view of the tower, with nothing in
between that I would consider to be capable of creating multi-path
reflections, my thought is that there is no way for this link to not
work. heh...

That being said, my experience with multi-path is that you may get wild
fluctuations in RSSI, or you may get great signal, but lots of dropped
packets. But you still get signal. In this case, at that particular
elevation, nothing. Like something is completely blocking the signal,
not that you are getting the signal from multiple directions. It's like
there is a dead zone from 14.5 feet AGL to about 16 ft. AGL. And that
tree isn't very big.

The only thing comparable I have experienced is with a wireless security
camera that was broadcasting enough signal that the CPE wasn't able to
hear the AP, but I know of nothing within 1/2 mile of this house that
could be generating any significant amount of signal.

John

Scott Reed wrote:
> Or the tree is no longer blocking multi-path interference.
>
> Jayson Baker wrote:
>   
>> Multipath interference from the tree.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, John Vogel  wrote:
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> So... I have a customer, been on for a couple of years now. The CPE on
>>> their home quit working. I go to check it out, log into the CPE from
>>> their computer, everything looks good, except that a scan for AP's shows
>>> only the linksys router they have in the house. This is a MT411 with an
>>> R52 card in it, with a 14dB panel enclosure. I assume the radio card
>>> quit receiving or a bad pigtail, so I go retrieve the unit from the
>>> mount, which is about 15 feet AGL (mounted on the facia at the peak of
>>> the gabled end of the house). I have my bucket truck parked just below
>>> where the unit was mounted, so I am standing just about straight under
>>> where the CPE had been when I take it apart to check it out.
>>>
>>> First thing I notice when disassembling the unit is that the SMA
>>> connector was pretty loose, so just for kicks, I tighten it down and
>>> boot it up. I have my laptop right there at the back of the truck, so I
>>> am powering it off of the truck and can log into it standing right
>>> there. I can see the tower my AP's are on, just one lonely tree between
>>> me and it, about a half mile away and it doesn't have any leaves on it
>>> anymore (the tower is about 3 miles away). I can sometimes pick up the
>>> tower directly from my laptop, so this link is a piece of cake, right?
>>> So after tightening the SMA connector, and booting up the unit, I pick
>>> it up and point it in the general direction of the tower. It links up.
>>> -84 to -86 RSSI.  So, even though I didn't really think the SMA
>>> connector being loose had been the problem, it must have been. So I
>>> re-mount the unit up where it had been. Log into it, and... nothing.
>>> Scans for AP's show nothing except the linksys. While I am up there, I
>>> can see about 80% of the water tower the AP's are on, that one lonely,
>>> straggly, leafless little tree is technically denying me LOS, but, this
>>> link worked all through the summer just fine, when that one tree had
>>> leaves on it. But, no AP's showing in the scan.
>>>
>>> Maybe I knocked something loose, or there is a problem with the power
>>> supply coming from the injector inside the house. So I grab my cable
>>> from the truck, and plug it in (powering the unit off the truck now) and
>>> try again. Still nothing. So I go back up, get the #...@! thing, and bring
>>> it back down to take it apart again. While coming back down, about
>>> halfway down I can see the laptop on the back of the truck, and winbox
>>> says that the radio (which isn't even pointing at the tower now) is
>>> associated to the tower. Go back up, and find that if I hold the radio
>>> at the exact elevation I had it mounted at, a scan won't even SEE the
>>> AP, much less associate to it. If I raise it about 18 inches, I get an
>>> -84, same thing with lowering it 18 inches. I get -84 to -86.  Moving
>>> side to side, same thing. At the elevation the mount is at, nothing.
>>> higher or lower, no problem.
>>>
>>> BTW, there are actually 3 120 degree sectors on the tower, and under
>>> normal circumstances, I can pick up all three of t

Re: [WISPA] 24dB 2.4 gig grid antennas

[Larry Yunker]

I would have to agree with Marlon, my experience with Pacwireless grids was
less than exceptional.  On the other hand I really like their horizontal
sectors and horizontal omnis.

If you are still looking for a replacement for the Andrew 2.4Ghz 24dbi, we
used to purchase our 24db's from Hyperlink Technologies and had good luck
with those.

Here's a link:

http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=22370&cmp=ALSOS


Regards,
Larry Yunker


 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 24dB 2.4 gig grid antennas

In my testing they are often at least 2 or three dB less than the rating. 
They have a crappy bracket.  They are 2x heavier.

Actually, there isn't anything that I DO like about them.  Been that way for

years.  I even tried one again a year or so ago.  yuck

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jason Hensley" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 24dB 2.4 gig grid antennas


> What do you not like about the PacWireless ones?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:14 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] 24dB 2.4 gig grid antennas
>
> Hi All,
>
> What are you using for grid antennas?  I really don't like the Pac 
> Wireless
> ones.  But I need something new because the Andrew (can't remember the new
> name) ones are being discontinued.
>
> Suggestions?
> marlon
>
>
>
>

> 
> 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] Rackmount PoE

[Larry Yunker]

This one's only 12 port, but the price is hard to beat.

http://www.primelec.com/Shop/Control/Product/fp/vpid/3396586/vpcsid/0/SFV/31
734

Regards,
Larry Yunker



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:00 PM
To: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE

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] tower contracts

[Larry Yunker]

After reading over the agreement, I see a quite a few items that I would
want to address.  

First and foremost, based on my experience with water tower access as an
ISP, I would have to note that 24x7 access needs to be negotiated.  If you
have to pay for access outside of 8-5 MF then so be it... but your equipment
WILL GO DOWN on a Friday night after 5:00 and you will not want to wait
until Monday at 8:00AM to get it fixed!

Second, also based upon my experience with water tower access as an ISP, I
would want provisions with regards to how you will handle tower maintenance
(i.e. painting of the tower, discontinued use of the tower, replacement of
the tower).  You are looking at a month of downtime if the city decides to
have their tower painted.  The sandblasting/painting crews will not work
with you... they will destroy your equipment if it's left on the tower
during their work.  There is no easy answer to this... We required a village
to put up a replacement communications tower BEFORE disassembling a
decommissioned water tower but that only worked because the 911 system
needed the new tower just as badly as we did!

Third, from a legal perspective, I would be careful about certain wording.
I see that this document is written as a "utility easement".  You want to
watch out for words that identify you as a utility.  In many states,
utilities are subject to state or local franchise taxes.  The last thing
that you want to do is admit to being a "utility" and then have your local
village enact a franchise tax for all wireless internet utilities!

Fourth, the contract mentions assignment but does cover transferability or
delegation.  These issues are important in case you choose to sell your
tower rights or choose to discontinue service off of that tower. Likewise,
you need to protect against the Village selling off its water tower to a
private water company. (It happens... there are a lot of suburbs in Chicago,
Illinois that have outsourced their water plant).

Fifth, you identify a type of service plan that you intend to provide.  That
service plan should be subject to a separate SLA (service level agreement).

Sixth, I would suggest that you better identify the types of equipment that
you can install.  You will need NEMA cabinets, cabling, mounting gear,
battery backups, maybe even a generator.  From what I understand, my former
company now has a fiber hut at the base of one of the village water towers.
You want to keep as many options open as possible without chasing them away
from the deal.

Seventh, indemnification generally these liability issues are covered by
your INSURANCE.  You have insurance, don't you?  You had better!  You name
the tower owner as an additional insured and in the case of a claim, your
insurance has to step in and defend you and the additional insured.  In
fact, I believe that all of the villages that I contracted with required
that we provide proof of insurance and a separate binder for the village. 

Eighth, private holding company you can further limit your liability
under the contract by creating a separate legal entity that solely maintains
the lease on that tower, but it requires following corporate formalities to
a tee if you hope to avoid "piercing of the corporate veil".  "Corporate
formalities" is a discussion to have with your attorney.


I'm sure that there are other issues to be addressed, but that's all I have
time to touch on at this point.

Regards,
Larry E. Yunker II, Esq.

Disclaimer: The opinions provided above are not to be considered "legal
advice".  While I am a former WISP and I am currently licensed as an
attorney in the state of Ohio, I am not licensed in the state of Kentucky.
Therefore, you are advised to seek a legal professional who is licensed in
your state and you are warned not to rely upon the commentary as provided
above.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower contracts

I dont have any issues with them protecting themselves, my issue is
making sure I have protection. Maybe I'm making more out it than I
shoudl? Here is the whole agreement:

EASEMENT AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES:
, hereinafter referred to as
"Grantor".
CITY OF ANYTOWN, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee".
2. AFFECTED PROPERTY:
Grantor is currently the owner of the following described real property
located in the City of Anytown, Kentucky:
Anytown Water Tower and its Premises
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TBD
Hereinafter referred to as "the Property".
3. GRANT OF EASEMENT:
For a period of five (5) years from the date of implementation, the Grantor
does hereby grant unto the Grantee, a Utility Easement for the Anytown
Water Tower and its premises (the Property) for the limited purposes
directly
associated with providing high-speed, wireless internet service to the
surrounding area.
4. TYPE OF EASEMENT:
The easement describe

Re: [WISPA] here it come$

[Larry Yunker]

Gee, now this (ESPN Live 360) won't make the Cable-Op internet providers
have an unfair advantage over traditional ISPs!

You have to imagine that the cable-op's are negotiating this "internet
service" into their network programming agreements with EPSN, whereas if you
are a non-cable-op you will have to pay outright and separate for the
service and then pass along that fee to all of your subscribers or more
likely... eat the cost.

This is another case where a utility is able to abuse its monopoly power to
the disadvantage of a non-utility ISP.  The regulated and non-regulated
portions of a company that engages in internet service need to be forced to
conduct business as arms-length transactions.

For instance... if MegaCableCompany operates as a Cable TV provider and
operates as an internet provider, the Cable TV provider business unit is
regulated and enjoys an advantage as a utility, whereas the Internet
Provider Business Unit is unregulated and operates in an open market.  The
Cable TV unit is free to negotiate terms for TV programming from the various
networks.  The Internet Unit is free to negotiate terms of service for
internet related valued-added-services.  Whereas, the Cable TV unit should
not be permitted to negotiate terms for unrelated internet services.  (i.e.
ESPN Live 360).  The CableTV unit as a utility providing TV service should
have no interest in internet valued added services.  However, in the
alternative... if the Cable TV unit were permitted to negotiate terms for
unrelated internet services, it should be prepared to offer those services
to the open market at the same rate that it charges its own Internet Service
Business Unit!!

Of course.. this argument may sound familiar to some of you...  I've made
this same argument time and time again for the unbundling of network
elements within the TelCo monopolies.  If you sell phone service as a
utility, your associated unregulated ISP business unit should not enjoy
preferential pricing with regards to internet transport or internet
termination.



Larry Yunker


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] here it come$

The television content providers are going to bill ISP's?
Try using ESPN Live 360 and see what it tells you.
-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/

Re: [WISPA] here it come$

[Larry Yunker]

If you have Time Warner IPs and Time Warner allows you to send EPSN360
traffic down their pipe on those IPs you might be able to use that situation
to solve this problem.  

For example, for a time, I was operating with redundant feeds (two different
internet providers) one of which allowed access to a usenet server and the
other which did not.  I built rules into Mikrotik to NAT all usenet traffic
behind one of the IPs that had usenet access.

If you have an decent router in the mix and know how to program it AND if
ESPN360 emanates from a specific IP range or TCP/UDP port, you could easily
build a few NAT'ing rules that would send ESPN360 requests out the Time
Warner IPs even for your business subs (of course this will put a load on
your Time Warner pipe).  

Regards,
Larry


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] here it come$

As a follow up, I found out why I havent had any ESPN360 requests
before now. This request came from a business account that uses my
public ip addresses. My residential subs are proxied out and show up
on my Time Warner IP. Since Time Warner is on the ESPN list, it works.
And I was all excited to switch everyone to my IP addys. Maybe not
such a good idea now!
-RickG

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:57 PM, RickG  wrote:
> The television content providers are going to bill ISP's?
> Try using ESPN Live 360 and see what it tells you.
> -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/

Re: [WISPA] making 5ghz link work with more power

[Larry Yunker]

I realize that you state that you cannot go with any bigger antennas, but
you might be able to fix this situation with the same size antennas if you
go with a more focused beam.  You state that you are running 24db panels.
Panels generally have a pretty wide beam width.  If you switch to a
parabolic of similar size, you would probably gain at least 3db on each side
of the link.

- Larry


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:49 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] making 5ghz link work with more power

Have a 5ghz 1mile backhaul, its near-LOS. I can barley make out the tippy
top of the grain leg that the antenna is on. On both sides of link I'm using
24db panels with R52's. Anyway the signal is not that hot, about -73/-74.
TCP Throughput on normal 802.11a is 17.5mbps. Turn on Nstream and its around
23.5mbps. I can not go bigger antenna's or higher on either side of link.
Believe me if I could I already would have. Was thinking about upgrading
each side to an XR5. I'm thinking for another 6-7db improvement over what
its at now. Does anyone have any experience with making a link like this
work? I need 30mbps with Nstream and possibly switching to Turnbo mode and
hoping for 60+mbps. Will amping each end with a pair of RFLINX amps overcome
the attenuation and make the link more solid or will this cause problems?

 

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] POE powered POE Splitter with Switch?

[Larry Yunker]

A quick google search turned up this:

http://www.wirelesslan.gr/product_info.php?cPath=48&products_id=1062&osCsid=
440557bb417622d46a58ff9007e2a706

POE switching volt to 5V or 6V or 7.5V or 9V or 12V

Looks to be 48V in and two outputs of 5V, 6V, 7.5V, 9V, or 12V.  It would
require a fairly large case at the top side of your tower, but you could run
48V up a single 4 pair ethernet cable to a 3COM NJ200 - then you could run
48V out of the various ports of the NJ200 into these little voltage
regulator devices and then run the regulated 12V power out of these devices
and into your top side equipment.  Theoretically it would work and you would
have a network switch topside all running off of a single 4 pair wire.

NOTE: I wouldn't do this!  I would just run extra pairs to the top.  The
less equipment topside the better.  Too many circuits top-side makes too
much climb time.  Stuff breaks... I think Murphy's law has some sort of
postulate that says stuff at 200ft AGL breaks MORE OFTEN!!!

- Larry 



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE powered POE Splitter with Switch?

Thanks. Those are good but don't quite do it. The specs say the POE is 48v.
I'd like something that you could program the POE out to 12v connected
devices.

Greg
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Mike Delp wrote:

> 3Com was close with the Network Jack devices.  made to fit in a wall
outlet,
> poe, POE out, and 300 version was managed.  Only four ports out, but
initial
> testing was pretty cool.  It is only 802.3af.
> 
> nj200 is the 10/100 model, and I just googled it and there is now a nj2000
> for Gigabit speeds.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone know of or use a POE powered POE splitter/switch combo which
>> could be tower mounted which would allow a single ethernet cable carrying
>> POE (perferrably 48v)  up the tower, and then would pass POE (adjustable
>> voltages) to multiple devices and also act as a switch (preferably
managed)?
>> I'm thinking of something that would let a person run a single Ethernet
up
>> the tower and then connect multiple POE powered devices. It seems like
this
>> is something that would be a big hit. Yes, I Googled it first.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>


>> 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] Email Hosting

[Larry Yunker]

I don't know what Google's ISP solution is, but I decided long ago that
google provides me better spam filtering than I can possibly hope to
maintain in house.  Let's face it, gmail handles such a large volume of
email, it can much more accurately identify and filter out junk based on
pattern recognition, dead-end boxes, etc. than any independent ISP can hope
to find.

So, I still "use" my own email accounts, but they all get filtered through a
gmail account (either through aliases or forwarding rules) before I ever
pick up my mail.  

The nice part about this solution is that it enables me to continue to
assign common aliases - like sales, service, support, etc., I have
"personalized" email with my own domain name, and if I wanted to, I could
still drop in rules in the mail server to trigger automated processes based
on email source or content.  Using gmail in conjunction with your own email
server is the best of both worlds - all the control, but a lot less hassle.

- Larry


 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Hosting

We do. We love it, customers love it.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Hosting

Josh,
Do you use Google's ISP solution?

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> I use Gmail.  Don't get those calls.  Still get some revenue.
>
> On 3/25/10, Robert West  wrote:
>> I dumped email hosting a couple of years ago and haven't looked back.
>>
>> In my situation, I found that over 2 thirds of the subs WERE NOT using
the
>> email but were with mostly Yahoo and a few other online services.  I
found
>> myself having to deal with cleaning out junk mail from stagnant email
>> accounts every few months and dealing with the mail server, backups and
all
>> that other stuff that I really had no time for.
>>
>> I kept the users who were on the system, stopped assigning email to the
new
>> subs and eventually we had zero mail users and I was done.  If someone
>> insists on mail, I'll assign one and charge an extra 5 bucks a month for
it
>> and add it to our domain which we now just host with a webhosting
company.
>> Simple and cheap.  We've all had this discussion before and yes, I know
it's
>> cool to have your service name in emails being sent out all over but I
>> really get no advertisement from that unless they are sending the emails
>> local and even with that, the area already knows us.
>>
>> Ah.  The joy of not getting the "My emails not workin'" phone
>> calls.
>>
>> Bob-
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Email Hosting
>>
>> I know that this has been discussed here last year but I am looking for
>> updates.
>>
>> I am wondering what others are using for email hosting.  My current
service
>> is low grade at best and I really do not want it brought back in-house.
 I
>> only have about 500 Subs and 300 emails.  Filtering, storage, bandwidth,
and
>> backup are all too much of a pain I would just prefer an affordable easy
to
>> transfer to service that doesn't kill my budget.  I know Google has a
>> service but I have not been able to get anyone to tell me that it is the
>> perfect answer.  I would also like a option to be able to give some
clients
>> an Exchange type of account, (sync to outlook or Blackberry) for more
money
>> and everyone else just a regular pop.
>>
>> Any recommendations?
>>
>> Steve Barnes
>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> 
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
> continue that counts."
> --- Winston Churchill
>
>
>
---

Re: [WISPA] Karlnet conversion

[Larry Yunker]

The answer depends on a number of factors:

Are you planning on running MT in 802.11b mode or in NStreme?
If you plan to run NStreme, you will need to change out all of your
Turbocell client radios and replace with MT clients.

If you plan to run 802.11b, you should be able to reuse many if not all of
your existing client radios.

Check your client license keys... if you have the ability to change from
Turbocell to Karlnet SEC, you can simply put up a MT 802.11b access point
next to your current turbocell ap and then you can switch your Turbocell
clients one-by-one over to Karlnet SEC.  Karlnet SEC will connect with any
802.11b compliant access point.  NOTE: not all Karlnet license keys will
enable switching from Turbocell to Karlnet SEC... some older keys ONLY get
you Turbocell, so then you will have to decide whether its worth investing
in a new key or dumping the gear and putting in a new client radio.

Best of luck,
Larry Yunker


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Nedolast
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:33 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Karlnet conversion

We are wanting to convert a 3 sector Karlnet tower over to a MT based 
station.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to convert it with the least 
amount of downtime for my customers.
Thanks,
Steve Nedolast





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] Legal Entity - which type? Was: Quesiton on Funding/Financing / Capital Availability

[Larry Yunker]

Wow... there is a lot of speculation going on here regarding the best choice
of legal entity for organization of a business. The answer is: there is no
simple answer.  I owned an ISP and now I'm a lawyer. During law school I
concentrated a fair amount of my coursework on business planning and
business organizations.  There was one underlying rule that we were told
always to follow:

"LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL"

That being said, does that mean that you want to create a C-Corporation or
an S-Corporation?  Not necessarily.  There are many forms of business that
limit the liability of the owners/investors.  For instance: you can choose
from C-Corps, S-Corps, Limited Liability Company, Limited Liability
Partnership, Limited Partnership, and Limited Liability Limited Partnership.
Each of these forms has certain liability advantages and certain tax
advantages.  Some of these forms are available in all states and some are
restricted in use and only available in certain states.  Additionally, there
can be certain advantages to being incorporated under one state's laws
versus being incorporated under your home state's laws.

The two forms of business organization that make little if any sense for any
business in this day and age are: the general partnership and the sole
proprietorship.  Take this simple example as to WHY you need to not be a
general partnership or sole proprietorship:

Hypothetical Scenario:
You own a Wireless ISP business.  You are the sole owner.  You are set up as
a sole proprietorship.  You have one employee who sits at the desk all day
long and answers sales calls and does technical support.  You do all of the
outside work and you always have happy customers.  One day you leave from
the shop and drive five miles to a customer's site.  You are in the middle
of installing a tripod on the customer's roof and you realize that you've
forgotten your last tube of roofing caulk back at the office.  You call your
trusty employee and ask them to drive and bring you the tube of caulk.  Your
employee gets in his personal car and starts to drive out to the site.  On
the way out, he is negligent and crashes into another car killing the driver
and causing permanent injuries to the passenger.  You have no insurance on
your employees' car and he carries the state minimum in liability insurance.

The driver's family sues your employee, your company, your company's
insurance and YOU PERSONALLY.  The case goes to JURY TRIAL.  Your insurance
company quickly gets out of the lawsuit because your employee was listed as
a desk worker and was outside of the scope of the coverage.  The Jury finds
that your employee, your company and you personally are liable joint &
severally for $2,000,000 for the wrongful death of the driver and $1,000,000
for the loss of consortium for the family and $2,000,000 for the hedonic
damages for the loss of enjoyment of life for the passenger that was
permanently disabled and $2,000,000 for life time medical care of the
passenger and $500,000 for future lost wages of the passenger.  So, you are
in for $7.5MM because your employee crashed his car on the way to drop off a
$2.00 tube of caulk!!

Now... how would this differ if you were for example a limited liability
company (assuming that you followed the organization formalities to make the
company a proper legal entity)?  

The court would still find all the same liability BUT you as an individual
owner would not be liable for the negligence of your employee.  That means
that it is likely that the crash would still bankrupt your company.
However, you as an individual could keep your car, your house, your personal
investments, cash, stock, pension, etc. and you could avoid a personal
bankruptcy.

So. this may seem extreme and unlikely, but you need to consider whether
it is worth an investment of $1000 or $2000 to shield yourself from the
unlimited liability that you face as a general partner or sole proprietor.

Regards,
Larry Yunker
larry.yun...@wispadvantage.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/

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Larry Yunker]

What you are referring to is called "corporate formalities".  These same
concepts exist with regards to LLC's.   For instance: You must have those
officers which the state statute requires (usually president and secretary
but some states require others), you must make those filings which the state
statute requires, you must properly finance the company, you must reasonably
insure the company, you must follow appropriate accounting procedures for
the company, you must adhere to your own bylaws - articles of organization
or other controlling documents, etc.

The bottom line is that the more that you do to treat the company as an
independent entity the less likely that someone can "pierce the corporate
veil."  The more often that you treat the company like an empty shell or as
something owned and controlled solely for your benefit, the more likely it
is that a creditor can reach beyond the company and attach to your assets.

Yet, I think the most commonly overlooked liability is the dreaded "personal
guarantee".  Until your company has built up sufficient credit history of
its own, it is likely that you will be asked to guarantee the liabilities of
your company.  When you purchase on credit or if you take out a loan, it is
quite likely that you will be asked and/or required to sign a personal
guarantee regardless of the structure of your company.  If you sign such a
document, you may be held personally liable for the underlying debt EVEN IF
the company is a limited liability entity (such as a LLC or a S-Corp).  Be
CAREFUL, some of these guarantees allow the creditor to seek payment from
YOU FIRST instead of even chasing the company!  
 
So, keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons for going with a limited
liability entity early-on is NOT to limit your liability to creditors (they
probably will reach you through personal guarantees).  The reason to go with
limited liability from the start is to limit your liability in "tort"
(meaning when you or someone that works for you causes someone else to be
hurt).  Also remember that torts happen outside of the company AND inside of
the company.  I'd say at least half of the calls that I'm fielding these
days come from people who have recently been laid-off from their employers
and now they are suing their employers for some sort of tort. (wrongful
discharge, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.)

- Larry

 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

Apparently, "meeting minutes" are one of the differences between an
LLC & Corporation. I do my "minutes" for the "annual meeting". No
biggie, but considering changing over to an LLC.
-RickG

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, George Rogato  wrote:
> Yeah, my accountant told me a story about one of his un named clients
> who was previously part of a corp . Turns out there was a lawsuit
> against a corporation that had filed for bk protection a couple years
> earlier.
>
> The person filing the lawsuit wanted to see the corporate minutes for
> the now defunct corporation to see if they were done on a regular basis.
>
> What they were after is, was it a real corporation that held directors
> meetings on a regular basis and kept minutes.
>
> if not, then the corporation would in fact  be considered an illegal
> corporation and the shareholders would then be considered sole
> proprietors and the corporations bk would be over turned, leaving them
> open to that lawsuit. More so than exposing the share holders to that
> type of liability, the share holders, now sole proprietor or partners
> would have also filed false tax returns and would be subject to all
> those unpaid taxes and penalties interest etc.
>
> A can of worms indeed, when not done right.
>
>
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
>> I understand the corporate structure and how it works. I also know that
>> if you follow all the proper corporate bylaws, they can NOT break the
>> corporate barrier. Yes, they will try and list each person individually,
>> but if you have a good attorney, that is a simple motion to get the
>> individuals removed (been there, done that).
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>>> It can be done a lot cheaper.  But we work hard to do it right not cheap
these days.
>>>
>>> And the corporate veil isn't as strong as it used to be.  If your
company screws up the officers (that's you) will be named on any suit these
days too.
>>>
>>> marlon
>>>
>>>   - Original Message -
>>>   From: Travis Johnson
>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>   Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 9:53 AM
>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital
Availability
>>>
>>>
>>>   Huh? We incorporated in 1997 and I think total cost was less than
$500. How do you ever expect to get away from having to do personal
guarantees if yo

Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

[Larry Yunker]

Obviously "doing thousands of dollars per day" DOES NOT EQUAL "making
thousands of dollars per day".  I had far too many of these self-important
ego maniacs day trading on my system a few years back.  Ironically, I'd
rather have the crazy "beanie baby" collectors than the day-traders!


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability

roflmao

I had a guy tell me that he was doing thousands of dollars per day in stock
business and needed a rock solid reliable connection.  I offered to sell him
a t-1.  He said he couldn't afford the $500 per month.  sheesh  Just be
honest so I can give you accurate advice!
marlon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital
Availability


  Yup... us too but now it's "I had to fold my online Poker hand because
my connection went down... I lost $1,000."

  Travis
  Microserv

  Charles Wu wrote: 
Yep, me too. Right out of the starting gates over 10 years ago, straight
with S-Corp. Too much stupid s**t too be sued over by being a service
provider. >For instance... Oh, your child saw porn? Maybe you should be
watching over your child instead of trying to screw me out of every penny I
own? Or... >there were three companies products that YOU could have bought
to protect your children from seeing that!

Heh...we used to joke that our ISP was responsible for destroying billions
of dollars of value in missed stock trades and market timings =)

-Charles





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] Need some quick trango help

[Larry Yunker]

This might be way off-base I don't know enough about the intricacies of
Trango polling to draw any definitive conclusions, but here's a theory:

Can customer A's radio "see"/"hear" customer B's radio?  If customer 'B' is
constantly transmitting and customer A is picking up B's transmission, maybe
it's just a squelching issue where A can't even get the time-slices
necessary to talk to the AP.  As for a solution... 

1) physically turn customer B's radio so that its main lobe is no longer
pointed at the AP but rather so that the radio is pointed as far away from
custom A's radio as possible (yet maintain minimal connectivity with the
AP).

2) switch customer B's radio (yes customer B... the one that is probably
stuck in constant transmit mode).

3) force the transmit db as low as possible on customer B's radio and tweak
the RSSI on customer A's radio so that it only "hears" the AP and hopefully
ignores the weak "noise" being emitted from customer B's radio.


Good luck,
Larry


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:03 PM
To: lakel...@gbcx.net; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need some quick trango help

No.  They've been customers for years and years.  One of them has a newer 
radio (replaced last year) though.  I think we replaced it due to a dead 
ethernet port or some such major failure.


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need some quick trango help


> Is either one of these customers a new customer?  I
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> 





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] just attended broadband stimulus seminar and WOW.....

[Larry Yunker]

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:23 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] just attended broadband stimulus seminar and WOW.

Robert West wrote:
> Why should [big companies] invest
> their cash in building a market when we can do it for them and once it's
> about ripe, they can just walk in and pick it?  We need to do what we can
to
> protect our little piece of the pie somehow.

A small entrepreneur sees an opportunity, builds something that lots of 
people want, makes some money from it, then a larger company buys it and 
makes said entrepreneur filthy rich (or at least better-off than he 
was). The customers win (they get the benefit of the new network 
regardless of who built it), the guy that just cashed out wins, the 
bigger company that buys the network wins (they presumably see profit 
potential or else they wouldn't buy). I thought this sort of 
sweat-equity-for-cash tradeoff was basically the American dream.

I don't see this being a bad thing for anyone involved.

David Smith
MVN.net



REPLY FOLLOWS:

You're overlooking the fact that the larger company is unlikely to buy out
the small entrepreneur.  How many WISPs were bought out when AT&T and
Verizon started really rolling out DSL?  Not many/any?  The fact is that the
larger corporation will drive the entrepreneur out of business by offering
loss-leader teaser rates on their broadband services until the existing
entrepreneurs are squeezed out of the market.  Why pay value for customers
when you can steal them away through unfair competition?

That unfortunately is the American reality.  

For the most part, I see this stimulus money as a subsidy which will enable
big players to entrench themselves into new markets with no risk to the big
player but a big cost to any existing/competing businesses.  With that in
mind, WISP need to think of ways that they can tap the government money
without losing their local focus.  WISPs might seriously want to consider
forming cooperatives in which a group of WISPs within a geographic region
enter into a joint venture to expand overall capacity.  Then that joint
venture can apply for stimulus money.  

- Larry Yunker




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] how to protect your kids

[Larry Yunker]

I have to echo Mike's sentiments on this subject.  If a kid is motivated,
they will find a way around any technical barrier that you put in place to
stop them from posting/texting/sexting/etc.  There are public computers,
cell-phones, ipod/ipads, thumb drives, and damn near a million ways to get
on line.

The best method to protect children has been around for years... Teach them
respect for themselves and others.  Teach them to recognize the difference
between right and wrong.  Teach them to be leaders not followers.  

I have two sons ages 9 and 11.  One's a WEBELOS (Cub Scout) & the other is a
TENDERFOOT (Boy Scout).  We have three or four planned activities every
month and it IS A TIME COMMITMENT!  The boys have learned how to camp, how
use a knife properly, how to shoot, & how to show respect to others, to the
flag, to our country, to god, and to family.  I used to think Boy Scouts
were a thing of the past... but I have renewed respect for the organization.
It provides a structure to teach boys many of the life-skills that have been
forgotten in this day-and-age and it provides an outlet to allow parents to
become involved in the lives of their children.

Best of luck to all of you parents, it's not easy but it is rewarding when
you can look back on the lives that you helped foster.

Regards,
Larry Yunker

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:41 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids

Marlon asked: "So, what do the rest of you do to try to protect or control
your kids these days?"

I taught them respect for others.  I taught them to treat the janitor the
same as they'd treat the principal.  I taught them to befriend the
friendless.

I taught them honesty and integrity, and demonstrated by example.  

Tell them regularly you are proud of them.  Trust them unless given reason
not to trust.  Listen.  Listen some more.  Ask good questions.  Show an
interest in what they are and what they do.

My situation may be different than some other's, but I did some other
things.

I taught them how to handle guns with safety and to shoot.  I taught them
early how to drive a vehicle, as soon as they could see over the steering
wheel, we took the Jeep out in the sticks and I taught them to drive.  

Parenting is not easy.  Kids don't come with an owner's manual, and
unfortunately don't come with an on-off switch. 

God speed in your parenting.  Be careful you don't come down too hard and
alienate them.  Some such rifts last for years.

Be aware that at 13, a kid thinks you are the most stupid person in the
world, but at 21 will have an epiphany that you were right all along.  Be
aware that whoever coined the term "terrible twos," never met a 4 year old,
OR a 13 year old.

Mike






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] how to protect your kids

[Larry Yunker]

For what it is worth, it looks like the issue of liability and disclosure of
private information is a concern to ISPs as they are faced with parent/child
relations.  Maybe an effective solution to this matter would be to modify
your terms-of-service to indicate that (1) accounts may not be opened by
minors - i.e. parental consent is required; (2) accounts for which a parent
and/or guardian has authorized use by a minor are subject to monitoring
and/or disclosure of any account activity to the authorizing parent and/or
guardian.

It seems to me that such language would open the door for an ISP to turn
over email to the parent upon request or even put a packet sniffer in place
and pull passwords for places such as Facebook, MySpace, or Gmail.  

I know that this all sounds pretty big-brother like and I don't encourage
active monitoring of customer activities.  It's a fine line we walk between
being supportive and being intrusive.

- Larry Yunker

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids

Ok granted I should have seen that response. I meant to phrase is in a
business way, i failed. My point is that $corp liability
will trump $random.person in most cases. It also was not about running
of customers but about the liability of actions. The
more mom & pop like a company, the more likely they are to assist
others (in pretty much all areas).



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Marlon K. Schafer 
wrote:
> If YOU came to me about something your kid was doing on MY system *I*
would
> try to help you out as much as I could.
>
> But then again, I'm not a mega corp either.  To me your kid is more
valuable
> than the money I'd loose by running off a few customers.
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeromie Reeves" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids
>
>
> My soon to be 4 and 7 yo boys have iMacs. They are locked down and
> just do not know about that stuff yet. I removed
> access to the web browser in the PSP cause the oldest found it. He
> does not know how to use it (or so I think). The best
> parents can do these days is be very proactive which you seam to be
> trying to do. I do not know the legalities of monitoring
> a kids device, i leave that up to parents and their lawyers. There are
> key loggers for pretty much everything out there, VPN's
> to make sure the data comes back to you first, and so on. Talk to your
> lawyer. If your child has access to these services from
> another location then I would assume access from there will or has
> been used. Find out if so and who owns it, you might be
> able to access much of that history from there. Also the great way
> back machine and google cache can often have copies of
> peoples pages. Talk with your lawyer. If I came to you and said your
> site had given access to my minor, how would your advisers
> tell you to respond? Likely to fluff me off as fast as possible to
> avoid any liability. It could take a simple request from a letter
> head to get them moving on it, or possibly real threat of legal
> action. Did I mention, talk to your lawyer. S/He will be the best
> source of information for correct surveilla^R^R parenting of digital
> children.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Marlon K. Schafer
>  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here's the scenario. My kids are expressly forbidden from having email
>> addresses outside my domain. They are forbidden from having myspace,
>> facebook etc. sites.
>>
>> If they want an email, fine by me, but it's one that *I* can check on.
>>
>> If they want a web site, fine by me, but make it a real one that *I* can
>> delete things from.
>>
>> I'm trying to teach them to NOT do or say things on the internet that
>> might
>> bite them in the butt later. The days of people eventually forgetting the
>> stupidity of youth or passion are long gone.
>>
>> Anyway, my 13 year old has a myspace account. He used a hotmail email
>> address to get it. He had permission to use neither of them. I finally
>> found out about the myspace account and went in to check out what he'd
>> been
>> saying. His trash and sent messages had both been erased between when I
>> got
>> the password out of him and when I had time to check on it. (I didn't
know
>> that his zune, a video player would ALSO allow him to get on the net
>> and
>> work on his page, talk to his friends etc. deep sigh)
>>
>> So, I contacted

Re: [WISPA] New WISP

[Larry Yunker]

For what it is worth... running a successful WISP will require a certain
level of technical expertise and probably a "coder".  

Anyone can throw up a simple access point with a tall antenna and connect it
to a LAN, but to grow and reach any sizeable market, you are going to need
someone that knows how to configure routing between access points and that
will look a lot like "coding".

Additionally, you will learn that with most solutions, access control,
network monitoring and bandwidth management all require some "coding".
Very few out-of-the-box solutions exist that provide for all of these
aspects of WISP operation.

Regards,
Larry Yunker


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Liam Cummings
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:50 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] New WISP

Hi all,

We are a technologies solutions company located in Cincinnati and trying
to become a WISP. We are running into two road blocks. 

1 - We need to choose software that doesn't need a coder to operate

2 - Choosing the right access points and other equipment

 

We would love to here your thoughts.

 

Any input would be much 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] New WISP

[Larry Yunker]

I agree that Coding is not equal to Networking.  But as I noted...
programming IOS or even chucking in routes using command-line on Mikrotik
"looks" like coding. 

I guess my point was that if you want to start a WISP, be prepared to get
your "hands dirty".  At some point, you are likely to find the need to use a
language whether it be IOS, Mikrotik-scripting, Bash, C-Shell, or even
Microsoft NT batch language.

- Larry

-Original Message-
From: Josh Luthman [mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:33 PM
To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New WISP

Coding != networking :)

On 4/27/10, Larry Yunker  wrote:
> For what it is worth... running a successful WISP will require a certain
> level of technical expertise and probably a "coder".
>
> Anyone can throw up a simple access point with a tall antenna and connect
it
> to a LAN, but to grow and reach any sizeable market, you are going to need
> someone that knows how to configure routing between access points and that
> will look a lot like "coding".
>
> Additionally, you will learn that with most solutions, access control,
> network monitoring and bandwidth management all require some "coding".
> Very few out-of-the-box solutions exist that provide for all of these
> aspects of WISP operation.
>
> Regards,
> Larry Yunker
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Liam Cummings
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:50 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] New WISP
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are a technologies solutions company located in Cincinnati and trying
> to become a WISP. We are running into two road blocks.
>
> 1 - We need to choose software that doesn't need a coder to operate
>
> 2 - Choosing the right access points and other equipment
>
>
>
> We would love to here your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Any input would be much 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/
>


-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
continue that counts."
--- Winston Churchill




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] legal entity type - was taxes

[Larry Yunker]

Rick,

Your comment regarding "owning nothing" doesn't take into account the full
picture.  You have earnings and you will continue to earn money in the
future.  If you are found liable for a tort or even for a breach of contract
as a sole proprietor, not only can the court order you to turn over assets
(house, car, and bank accounts), the court can garnish your current and
future sources of income to satisfy the judgment.  In the end, you get stuck
having to file personal bankruptcy to eliminate the judgment/garnishment.

While corporate formalities can be a pain they are a necessary evil if you
hope to shield yourself from the liabilities that flow from operating a
business.  If you are simply looking for a pass-through income option, you
might consider forming an LLC which enjoys limited liability but works like
a partnership for purposes of pass-through income and loss reporting.

Regards,
Larry Yunker




Rick Wrote:

I agree which is why I did S-Corp from the start. But then again, I
own nothing, so NO risk! Furthermore, I hear that the "corporate veil"
can be pierced if "you" do the work. Its just disheartening how much
crud you have to do to run a business (besides the actual business).
Thanks for the input!

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Glenn Kelley  wrote:
> Rick
>
> Sole Proprietor has its own back of nuttiness.  You and everything you
> own is on the line.
> I have been there and it is far from fun.
>
> In short - you simply don't want someone having an issue and you
> loosing your home, car - etc over it.
>
> Thus the reason after I lost my shirt once - I will never do a sole
> proprietorship EVER.
> in my humble opinion - they should be illegal - because many just dont
> know the difference and assume it has a safety net.
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, RickG wrote:
>
>> Its tempting to use a known CPA that is versed in our industry but
>> I've had issues dealing with those out of state. With that said, I'm
>> curious as to feedback on another issue. Who here is doing business as
>> a "sole proprietor"? I've been an "S-Corp" for years but considering
>> switching back due to its simplicity. This Corp stuff doesnt seem
>> worth all the hassle.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > > wrote:
>>> I'm with Travis on this one.  Sometimes we take the entire hit at
>>> once,
>>> other times we spread it out.  It kind of depends on what we need for
>>> deductions and what the equipment is.
>>>
>>> Our accountant has taken a lot of time to learn this industry and
>>> is really
>>> good.  The phone number is 509.982.2922 if anyone is looking for a
>>> good one.
>>>
>>> laters,
>>> marlon
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "RickG" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:55 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] taxes
>>>
>>>
>>>> Travis, thanks for your input. I'm really looking for feedback as to
>>>> what our industry's standard is. I submit that the IRS does not look
>>>> at it as a "personal, business choice". I'd rather do it correctly
>>>> now
>>>> than find out from the IRS I'm doing it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Travis Johnson 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> This is a personal, business choice. There is no set answer. Some
>>>>> of our
>>>>> equipment we expense and some we depreciate. It all depends on
>>>>> what tax
>>>>> breaks you need now vs. later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Travis
>>>>> Microserv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> RickG wrote:
>>>>>> Everyone's favorite subject :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting mixed information form my accountants on this and
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> know what everyone else is doing. The basic question is this:
>>>>>> Are you
>>>>>> expensing or depreciating the equipment? Equipment being radios
>>>>>> (AP &
>>>>>> CPE), antennas, switches, firewalls, etc.
>>>>>> With the cost of the electronics being so low, its not making much
>>>>>> sense to depreciate. Which takes me to a second question: Have any
>>>>>> WISPs been audited by the IRS for this reason?
&g

Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes

[Larry Yunker]

SELF EMPLOYMENT
Schedule SE Section(A)

5. Self-employment tax. If the amount on line 4 is:
$106,800 or less, multiply line 4 by 15.3% (.153). Enter the result here and
on Form 1040, line 56.

You then get to deduct half of your self-employment tax when figuring your
adjusted gross income.


W2 EMPLOYMENT
On your W2 you will find your 2.9% on line 6 "Medicare tax withheld" and
6.2% on line 4 "Social security tax withheld".

2.9 + 6.2 = 9.1% 

The remaining 6.2% is paid by the employer and is a write off (expense) for
the employer.
 
9.1% + 6.2% = 15.3%

As a W2 employee, you don't get to deduct any portion of your social
security/medicare tax from adjusted gross income, but your employer gets to
claim the 6.2% that it paid.

The government collects the same social security and medicare tax either
way.  There is a slight difference with respect to what entity gets the
deduction and how much the deduction applies to.

- Larry Yunker


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David Sovereen
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes

If you are a subcontractor, you pay the entire 15% yourself. Subcontracting
does not eliminate or reduce any social security tax obligation.  It only
alters who pays it.

Dave

RickG  wrote:


If I understand correctly, social security tax is 15%. In an
employment situation, an employee pays 7.5% and the employer matches
pays the other 7.5%. If you subcontract, you only pay 7.5% and the
corp pays nothing.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Scottie Arnett  wrote:
> The 7.5% comes back in on self-employment tax. That is the social security
> tax on the self-employed.
>
> Scottie
>
>> But, they're not getting unemployment taxes, and they loose 7.5% on
>> social security taxes...
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Jerry Richardson
>>  wrote:
>>> Yeah but they get it through self employment taxes.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of RickG
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:03 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> I wanted to reply to this before I sent my last remarks. Rather than
>>> employee, I've been a "subcontractor" to my corporation since it
>>> began. These CPAs say that since I work in the company this is not a
>>> good thing because the government doesnt get all its "due" through
>>> payroll taxes.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Tom DeReggi 
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Same subject, different question: Are you an employee of the corp?
>>>>
>>>> Good question. Again that depends. Depends on whether you are making
>>>> money
>>>> or investing in money.
>>>> If you invest cash into a company, it usually makes sense to remove
>>>> cash by
>>>> paying back the investment, to avoid being double taxed on your own
>>>> money,
>>>> which would occur if you took payroll instead. If you are the sole
>>>> owner of
>>>> a S-Corp it becomes more forgiving, because at the end of the day
>>>> anything
>>>> you didn't take as salary, would tunnel to your personal income return
>>>> anyways.
>>>> But its really about what your tax braket and tax rate is for each
>>>> entity,
>>>> and monthly estimated tax payments would be. It about adjusting it so
>>>> the
>>>> least amount of tax paid upfront.
>>>> If you haven't injected investment into the company, and company is
>>>> making
>>>> money, and you need money monthly to live,  you may have no choice but
>>>> to
>>>> take payroll as an employee, so you can take money out when you need
>>>> it,
>>>> which is every month.  Where as, if you live off another income source,
>>>> you
>>>> may not need to be an employee, and just take the income at end of the
>>>> company tax year. It becomes mor complicated if multiple stock holders,
>>>> as
>>>> Employee payroll can be a method of defining fair compensation for time
>>>> spent, before recognizing company profits.
>>>> I personally am not an employee of my company, I am a stockholder. It
>>>> much
>>>> cleaner that way for my situation.
>>>> However, I warn caution to others on that. If you a

Re: [WISPA] switch ports

[Larry Yunker]

Travis,

Is the switch in a temperature / humidity controlled environment or is it
sitting outside in a relatively uncontrolled NEMA enclosure?  I've seen a
lot of switches die during cold weather when run in NEMA boxes.  Keeping the
box above freezing seems to resolve the issue in most cases.

Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] switch ports

Hi,

Recently we have starting having ports on our ethernet switches blow 
out. This is during the middle of winter, when there is no lightning or 
any other static electricity. We simply move to a different port on the 
switch and everything is fine.

We have protected PoE injectors (Pacific Wireless) with grounded power 
cords. We are using HP Procurve switches. We usually have a 3ft patch 
cord between the injector and switch.

Is there any particular brand of managed switch that handles this type 
of issue better than any others?

Travis
Microserv




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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money

[Larry Yunker]

You can pick up a Sonicwall Firewall/VPN solution starting at about $150
from liquidators or $300-$400 from retailers.
  
The Sonicwall units are pretty easy to set up and they rarely crashed or
locked up (unlike cheap Netgear/Linksys solutions) ... It's been a while
since I've used one, but if I recall correctly, Sonicwall used a proprietary
VPN software which required users to buy a VPN client user license (about
50-60 bucks).

Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Langseth
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money

You can pick up a Cisco ASA5505 with basic access for under 500 from newegg.


Ryan

Ron Wallace wrote:
> Yes, you are right David, it was not specific. 
> 
> They need to protect their Medicial Billing Records, Patient info as well
as critical info about their own business from "Hackers" who might discover
thier business, damage some of the billing and medical data, or cause a
failure in their system. Worst case would be to publish "patient medical
Records data", this has happened before and HHS and the Attorneys freak out,
and so therefore do the Docs.
> 
> Outside Access requirement is only for the Doc's wife to access the
"Billing System (SW)" to enable work from home.
> 
> I appreciate anything you are willing to share. And your pointing out the
vagueness of the request was insightful, thanks very much.
> 
> Ron Wallace
> Hahnron, Inc.
> 220 S. Jackson Dt.
> Addison, MI 49220
> 
> Phone: (517)547-8410
> Mobile: (517)605-4542
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 06:48 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money
> 
>> I have a small Medical practice that has requested a firewall for their >
LAN. Which would you all recommend? Price rane below $1000, Doc woule >
prefer $500. 
> That's incredibly vague. What do they need to protect, from whom, and what
if any outside access should be permitted? This could be as simple as a $50
Linksys router, or as complicated as a mid-range Cisco PIX (last I looked
those still were in the $700-ish range). Answering the question properly
will require quite a bit more information. David Smith MVN.net 
>

 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/


-- 
Ryan Langseth
System Administrator
InvisiMax
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 218.745.6030
Cell: 701.739.1577




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] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP

[Larry Yunker]

Do you know whether Heartland is set up as a CLEC in Illinois?  Do they have
switches in the LATA that from which you are trying to port numbers?  If
not, do they have an agreement with a CLEC or ILEC that does have switching
capability in that LATA?

Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) "local number
portability" (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic area,
you can switch telephone service providers and keep your existing phone
number.  I've heard of telco's claiming non-portability of numbers based on
the fact that a Vo-IP provider is actually not in the "same geographic area"
in that the Vo-IP provider had no facilities and no partners in that
geographic area.

ALSO Note: Certain small wireline companies may have an exemption from the
porting requirements if they have received a waiver from their state public
service commission.

Larry Yunker, Network Consultant
WISP Advantage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ross Cornett
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP

We found that ICTC (Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company) and Frontier 
use the same tandem in Mattoon illinois... Frontier will pass calls from 
Frontier to ICTC... However, when we port a number from ICTC, they will not 
hand the call over to heartland communications, which is our new VOIP 
provider...   I called the ICC(Illinois Commerce Commission) they told me I 
had to call the FCC they told me until I contacted a lawyer and they would 
not talk to me... I can't believe the red tape...

In the meantime, I have customers in Frontier Communications, that are 
losing service due to this mishap...



_
Galatians 6:7-8: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man 
soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of 
the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the 
Spirit reap life everlasting."

_
- Original Message - 
From: "Eric Merkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP


> Have your CLEC call them and make sure it is not just a routing issue
> or problem in their phone switch. We've run into this quite a bit with
> rural telco's in our area. If they are truly blocking calls to your
> numbers, complain to your state's public utility comission ASAP!
>
> -Eric
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ross Cornett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyone know of anything that can help me here?
>>
>>  Frontier communciations is allowing us to port numbers out of their
>>  territory, but they are blocking callers from their areas from calling 
>> those
>>  numbers
>>
>>  Is this legal?  Does anyone have any ideas that can help me...
>>
>>  We are working with Heartland Communciations in Paducah Kentucky.  We 
>> get
>>  our bandwidth from them.  They also do our VOIP.  When we switched from 
>> our
>>  Illinois Consolidated telephone system a centrex system.  We moved to 
>> our
>>  inhouse VOIP provided by Heartland Communications in Paducah Kentucky.
>>  Frontier Communications started blocking their callers from calling our
>>  office and any dialup numbers we ported also...
>>
>>  By the way Illinois Consolidated, an independant in Central Illinois has
>>  been really nice working with us on this I can't say enough about 
>> their
>>  assistance...
>>
>>  My dialups are going fast If I can't get a solutionlet alone my 
>> office
>>  will never be able to use the VOIP that I have fibered to my office
>>
>>
>>
>>  Ross E. Cornett
>>  HofNet Communications, Inc.
>>
>>
>> 
>>

_
>>  Galatians 6:7-8: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a 
>> man
>>  soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall 
>> of
>>  the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the
>>  Spirit reap life everlasting."
>> 
>>

_
>>  

Re: [WISPA] Watertower trouble

[Larry Yunker]

Chuck McCown Wrote:

>Talk to a judge for an emergency injunction.  That is interfering with 
>interstate commerce.

Two issues with this approach... (1) if you are claiming an interstate
commerce issue you need to file in Federal Court (2) if you aren't crossing
state lines with your signal, then it's unlikely that you could turn this
into an interstate commerce issue (you would have to show that your service
substantial effecting things that travel in interstate commerce).

Besides... the government is going to argue that it's a health & safety
issue and the police power for health and safety is almost always going to
trump any temporary inconvenience to private business.

You would probably have better luck negotiating a deal with the city and the
city's contractor for shrouding your equipment as suggested by others on
this list.

Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

P.S. The information contained in this message is informed but is NOT LEGAL
ADVISE (YET!)




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] Watertower trouble

[Larry Yunker]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Watertower trouble

Nope, telecommunications are defacto interstate, especially internet and in 
general anything that the FCC regulates.
The FCC had declared all internet communications as interstate in nature and

they have successfully kept the jurisdiction over such cases.

- Yep, you are right, "internet service" as a form of telecommunications is
interstate, but provisioning may still be controlled under local (state) law
and contract-law is definitely a state law issue.


Federal judges are easy to find.  And obtaining an emergency injunction is 
frequently done on unilateral argument.  The town's opinion would not even 
be asked.  If possible you totally blindside them.

- As a last resort, you could ask for a TRO (temporary restraining order) to
stop the municipality from kicking you off, but keep in mind that "police
power" is given great deference.  If the muni can show that there is a
chance that delaying the sandblasting will put even one person's health at
risk, the judge should revoke the TRO immediately and the muni will likely
be pissed at you for having put them through the hassle of going to court.  
My 2 cents worth - try to negotiate FIRST and resort to the courts LAST.

- Larry







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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[Larry Yunker]

I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early
termination fee issue.  The underlying concern is that early termination
fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting provider
as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract.

 

In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of
the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost
includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which has
been lost due to that customer.  Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end of
his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered.

 

The problems that arise are these:

(1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the
equipment/installation, so companies "average-out" losses by cost-shifting. 



For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms
with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and
installation worth $350.00.  Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service
Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment.  Customer B drops in month 23
so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment.
The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00
by overcharging Customer B.  This system shifts the cost burden from those
who drop early to those who drop late.

 

(2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and
installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal.  If
customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs
$350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not buy
at all.  Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber understood
that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200, they
might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. 

 

(3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service
and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an
oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative
provider.  

For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term
with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the customer
$40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to
respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract.  During
that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination
than they do through the subscription fees!

 

Potential Solutions to these problems:

(1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation, equipment,
and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees.

(2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of
installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty
idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along
through subscription fees).

(3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the cost-shifting
described above CANNOT OCCUR.

(4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the prorated
balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to switch
to that new provider.  Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance will
be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a win-win
for the new provider and the new customer.

(5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or provide
some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that costs of
switching carriers could be mitigated.  Make "locking phones" and/or CPE
illegal wherever the customer "owns" the equipment.

(6)Provide a mechanism for regulation of minimum standards of service,
if a provider cannot meet the minimum standard of service then a customer
should be released from his contract without penalty and the equipment
should be returned to the provider. 

a.This idea could be established in the cell phone industry by recording
a baseline of coverage within the first 30 days of new service and comparing
changes in coverage to that first 30 day baseline.  If the coverage drops
significantly from the baseline then the customer would have a basis for
dropping without penalty.  In the fixed wireless business, this process
could be more difficult due to the uncertainty of outside interference, but
the concept remains the same.  Set a baseline, set a minimum threshold and
create a procedure for testing against that threshold.

 

Well that's my two cents worth. hopefully some of these ideas make it
through to the powers-that-be in D.C.

 

 

Larry Yunker, J.D. 

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes

 

This could 

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[Larry Yunker]

Travis,

I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a
contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the
terms of the agreement. 

The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than recoup
costs.  The measure of a breach of contract is always supposed to be the
loss on that individual contract not a penalty to help cover the costs lost
on other contracts. (i.e. the cost shifting discussed below). 

Absent some showing of fraud or similar abuse, there are no penalties
recognized at law in contracts.  So, to the extent that a termination fee is
imposed to penalize an unwilling party to the contract, the fee is invalid.

- Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

Or really, the consumer could just read the contract before they sign 
it. Problem solved. ;)

Travis
Microserv

Larry Yunker wrote:
> I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early
> termination fee issue.  The underlying concern is that early termination
> fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting
provider
> as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract.
>
>  
>
> In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of
> the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost
> includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which
has
> been lost due to that customer.  Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end
of
> his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered.
>
>  
>
> The problems that arise are these:
>
> (1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the
> equipment/installation, so companies "average-out" losses by
cost-shifting. 
>
>
>
> For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms
> with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and
> installation worth $350.00.  Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service
> Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment.  Customer B drops in month
23
> so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment.
> The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00
> by overcharging Customer B.  This system shifts the cost burden from those
> who drop early to those who drop late.
>
>  
>
> (2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and
> installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal.  If
> customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs
> $350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not
buy
> at all.  Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber
understood
> that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200,
they
> might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. 
>
>  
>
> (3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service
> and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an
> oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative
> provider.  
>
> For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term
> with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the
customer
> $40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to
> respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract.  During
> that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination
> than they do through the subscription fees!
>
>  
>
> Potential Solutions to these problems:
>
> (1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation,
equipment,
> and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees.
>
> (2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of
> installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty
> idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along
> through subscription fees).
>
> (3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the
cost-shifting
> described above CANNOT OCCUR.
>
> (4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the
prorated
> balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to
switch
> to that new provider.  Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance
will
> be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a
win-win
> for the new provider and the new customer.
>
> (5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or
provide
> some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that co

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[Larry Yunker]

Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to
telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined.  Traditionally, STATE
COURTS have resolved contractual disputes.  However, in 2005, a cell carrier
named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that
early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from
rendering decisions against the cell carrier).  The FCC has held comment on
the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when
SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with
their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling.

The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees
as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC
or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state
level.  The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how
ETF's will be adjudicated in the future.  It certainly appears that the FCC
is moving towards regulation of the marketplace.

Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this
issue.  I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes
just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines).  Common
law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many
of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination
fees.  The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts
have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the
FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field
of telecommunication termination fees.  This indecision by the FCC has held
up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts.  The main
thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so that
subscribers have rights either in state court or before the FCC and so that
PROVIDERS have some sense of direction with regards to their obligations or
limitations under common law and regulatory regimes.

- Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes





----- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes


> Travis,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a
> contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the
> terms of the agreement.
>
> The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than 
> recoup
> costs.


Again... So?   It is not the job of government to "ensure" that everything a

customer chooses to do is "made fair" for him.






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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[Larry Yunker]

The problem lies in the common belief that one can draft a contract which
imposes a penalty for breach of contract. 

While courts often allow some measure of liquidated damages they generally
will not protect a drafting party by enforcing a penalty clause.  So, if you
were challenged by a customer when trying to enforce an early termination
fee of $1000.00 on a 2 year term internet service agreement, you would have
to show that you would likely loose $1000.00 in expenses and ascertainable
future revenues.  

For example: If you charge $50.00 per month for internet, you could probably
show $1000.00 in potential loss over the two year term but remember that the
amount of loss diminishes the further into that term that you get.

BUT... Now look at your example of a $10,000 termination fee.  No court
would enforce a $10,000 termination fee for $50/month internet because it
would clearly be a penalty.  Worst case if you paid $1000.00 for the CPE,
$500 for the install, and lost $1200 in future revenues, you would still
only have lost $2700.00 total.  So the court would cap you at $2700.00 worth
of liquidated damages.

I know that everyone would like to think that there is an absolute freedom
to put anything you want into a contract, but it's simply not true.  Courts
reform contracts when the contracts try to impose penalties.  The policy
reason for doing disallowing penalties is to promote freedom of contract.
In that sometimes it's better for competition, the economy, and the
marketplace for parties to be able to BREACH their contractual agreements.
Therefore we want to allow breaches to occur when it would economically make
sense to leave the contract or break its terms.  Let's face it... if you
could ALWAYS write a big penalty into every contract, NO ONE would ever be
able to willingly break a contract.

- Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

I still don't "get" it. If you specifically stated the early termination fee
in the contract and provide a well defined SLA and what will happen if you
do not provide that SLA to the customer, then what is to be argued? If the
contract says there is a $1000 termination fee or a $10,000 termination fee,
it should not matter. When you both sign your name to the contract, you have
both agreed to all terms "IN" that contract. It is what is left out of the
contract that should be dealt with in court.

As per this discussion, the Internet in "most" part is still unregulated.
Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is still
not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a
fully regulated industry that falls under their control.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:12:14 -0400

>Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to
>telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined.  Traditionally, STATE
>COURTS have resolved contractual disputes.  However, in 2005, a cell
carrier
>named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that
>early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore
fall
>under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS
from
>rendering decisions against the cell carrier).  The FCC has held comment on
>the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when
>SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with
>their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling.
>
>The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination
fees
>as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the
FCC
>or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state
>level.  The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how
>ETF's will be adjudicated in the future.  It certainly appears that the FCC
>is moving towards regulation of the marketplace.
>
>Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this
>issue.  I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes
>just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines).  Common
>law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many
>of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination
>fees.  The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts
>have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the
>FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field
>of t

Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

[Larry Yunker]

I agree that the auto-renew trick is a concern, but I think that cellular
service is where this all started.  Changes in availability, reliability,
packages, and competition in the cellular market has also lead to much of
the push for early termination fee (ETF) reform.  

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, land-line phone rates are tariffed
services.  Cellular is NOT subject to tariffs and is VERY loosely regulated
with regards to quality issues.  

With the mergers of Cingular and AT&T and Nextel and Sprint, roughly half of
all cell phone users in the U.S. have had some sort of merger affect their
service, billing, or network over the past five years.  Some changes have
been good, some bad, but the net effect is that these changes may have
spurred many customers to look elsewhere for service.  From the consumer's
prospective, ETF's stand in the way of customer "choice".  From the
prospective of a service provider we all understand the need to recoup our
investment and we understand the cost of losing a customer, hopefully the
regulators will see this potential loss to the provider before issuing any
preemptory rules regarding EFT's.

- Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes

> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast...
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002
776.html

I agree that this could be a real issue.  But one thing that really
irks me though is the under handed(in my opinion) use of auto renewing
contracts.  After the contract is up it should just switch to month to
month service.  This is likely what has opened this can of worms.

I know of a few people that are screaming about that.  They switch
there telco circuits to a new provider.  They sign like a 2 year term.
 After 2 years 4 months they figure the contract is up so they switch
again.  They get nailed on early termination because it auto renewed
for another 2 years 4 months earlier.

Matt




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] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

BTW, someone is bound to ask why the system shows 0ms in the first test
that happens to be what VB.Net reports when a ping times-out (right now I
have it configured to treat timeouts as 999ms for purposes of averaging).
I considered changing the display to show 999 or "timeout", but then I
thought about how the clients might get "upset" if they see that sort of
test result, so I just left it as displaying 0ms.  It's fairly easy change
if anyone thinks it should be changed.

- Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:25 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program

How's this one look?  I thought I'd put something together to be used as a
"user check" program.

It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold
each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on Tuesday.
then I'll try to publish it.  If anyone sees something they would like
changed/added, let me know. 

 



 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WISPA] User check program

 

Hi,

 

I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do 

some basic "connectivity" checking for customers? I had the thought 

today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could 

download on their PC and then run that would do things like:

 

(1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results 

as well)

(2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address

(3) Ping a domain name

(4) Ping our main email server

(5) Ping the customers default gateway

(6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the 

Internet)

(7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local 

server and compute the time vs. file size?)

(8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to 

whatever email address they put in.

 

It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that 

says "Start". Then the results could show a Green Light for each item 

that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice 

to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface.

 

Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something 

written, unless there is already something close out there?

 

Travis

Microserv

 

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!

http://signup.wispa.org/




 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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

 

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





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

ftware and I ideally don't want to expose the account
information in a clear text INI file.  Ideas?

8) Text from the INI file for a default email address field for the customer
send test results to.  For example "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" already
filled in the box.

- This was one that I planned to add.  I'll probably create a drop-down list
which can be populated by the ini file.  I hate trusting clients to
correctly type in email addresses ;-)

9) Ability for the program to request a new INI file from the speed test
server so we could remotely update a customer's check program without
customer's intervention (beyond the initial installation of course).
Automatic updating the check program executatable itself would be really
nice but even just an update of the INI file would be huge!  No server side
program would be required as this could be as simple as downloading a file
from a HTTP web server just prior to performing the check each and every
time.  First line in the INI file could have as username "1234smith" which
would be used to download file "usercheck1234smith.dat" from the web server
and save it on the local computer as "usercheck.ini".  If there was no such
.dat file on the speed test server computer then the original
"usercheck.ini" file would remain.  I guess the username would have to be
entered by the user to customize it during installation.  If a custom
username was entered during installation then it should show somewhere on
the test report and be included in the test results email.

- I like the idea of checking for remote updates.  Probably a round two
upgrade, but definitely worth doing.

10) Add ping test for the "Tower".  This allows the user to determine and
differentiate from a failure somewhere in our network between them and the
central DNS server.  This could be the IP address of the AP they get service
from or maybe a backhaul router.  Logically, this test would be second,
after the test for a gateway ping.  If the INI file was customizable on a
per user basis (see item 9 above) then this particular test could be unique
to each customer.  This test could be disabled and hidden for a standard
install of the user check program and only appear if the INI file was
customized for a particular customer.

- This one will go hand-in-hand with #4.  Rather than hard coding the test
servers, I'll change the system to pull up a dynamic list of potential test
targets from the ini file.

11) Add a line under the tech support phone number for a tech support email
address such as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" since emails are always better
than phone calls...if you can get your customers trained to use that method.
;)  Maybe make the address clickable to open a compose new email window to
encourage customers to use this method!

- YES YES YES... this will definitely be included in the FIRST CUT.  

12) Have the program minimize itself to a notification area icon.  Once
minimized, a simple red, yellow, or green ball would show status all the
time.  Maybe periodically ping the backbone router and Internet connectivity
IP addresses.  To reduce flashes of "yellow" during network congestion I
wouldn't compare the resulting ping times to determine green or yellow
status of the notification area icon.  I would just show green if both the
backbone router and the Internet addresses respond to a ping, and yellow if
only the backbone router replies.  Red if the backbone router does not
respond to the ping.

- Neat idea, I don't know if you want every one of your wireless clients
generative useless ICMP traffic all of the time.  On an 802.11 network,
having hundreds of meaningless ICMP requests running all of the time could
severely impact performance.  ALSO on networks with dynamic polling, the
ICMP requests could screw up the polling algorithm and cause the AP to
allocate time to dormant connections.  I invite feedback on this one since
there is a difference of opinion here.  P.S. Anyone know how to minimize to
tray and modify the tray icon in vb.net?  That one's new on me.

13) Add a check box option for the customer to have the user check program
automatically start when they start their computer.

- Hmmm I hate start-up programs but I'll leave this one open to
consensus as well.  Would this be useful?

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:34 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program
> 
> BTW, someone is bound to ask why the system shows 0ms in the 
> first test
> that happens to be what VB.Net reports when a ping times-out 
> (right now I have it configured to treat timeouts as 999ms 
> for purposes of averaging).
> I considered changing the disp

Re: [WISPA] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

Right now the app is configured to pull the email server address to be
tested from the ISP's INI file.  I'm not testing to make sure that the mail
software settings are configured correctly. I'm just pinging through to a
predefined server address.  In fact, I'm not even checking to see if the
customer can connect to a POP3, IMAP, or SMTP port.  Of course, checking
email client settings wouldn't be a bad idea for a future release but I'd
need some suggestions as to how to identify such settings given the diverse
set of client applications.  Ideas?

- Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:40 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program

Looks good.  Just one question: where are you pulling the mail server ip 
address from?  In our case, we can't assume our users are on the same 
software (outlook/windows mail).  Some have thunderbird, others (gag) 
Incredimail

Randy


Larry Yunker wrote:
> How's this one look?  I thought I'd put something together to be used as a
> "user check" program.
>
> It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold
> each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on
Tuesday.
> then I'll try to publish it.  If anyone sees something they would like
> changed/added, let me know. 
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry Yunker
>
> Network Consultant
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM
> To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [WISPA] User check program
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do 
>
> some basic "connectivity" checking for customers? I had the thought 
>
> today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could 
>
> download on their PC and then run that would do things like:
>
>  
>
> (1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results 
>
> as well)
>
> (2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address
>
> (3) Ping a domain name
>
> (4) Ping our main email server
>
> (5) Ping the customers default gateway
>
> (6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the 
>
> Internet)
>
> (7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local 
>
> server and compute the time vs. file size?)
>
> (8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to 
>
> whatever email address they put in.
>
>  
>
> It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that 
>
> says "Start". Then the results could show a Green Light for each item 
>
> that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice 
>
> to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface.
>
>  
>
> Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something 
>
> written, unless there is already something close out there?
>
>  
>
> Travis
>
> Microserv
>
>  
>
>  
>
>

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

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


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


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

-- 
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc

office: 435-773-6071






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] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

A question that remains to be answered.. What format shall I use when
sending the test results to email?  Right now I've got the system simply
creating a delimited list of test results as one long string.  It's not
pretty, but it's very easy to parse if you want to load it into some sort of
database.  It would take a bit longer, but I could modify the code to
generate an XML file.  Any thoughts regarding output format?

 

- Larry

  _  

From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program

 

This is perfect and exactly what I was looking for... :)

Here are a couple changes I would suggest:

(1) under the "My Internet Settings" have it show IP address, Subnet mask
and default gateway. Then move the DNS to the other side under with "Mail
Server" being the last on the list.

(2) Internet Connectivity Test needs to show what it's pinging (I assume it
would be a domain name like www.google.com).

(3) Network speed test needs to do a download AND upload test (using FTP
maybe?). Should be able to have a username/password and the server name to
accomplish downloading and uploading files on a server.

This is very cool. Nice work!

Travis


Larry Yunker wrote: 

How's this one look?  I thought I'd put something together to be used as a
"user check" program.
 
It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold
each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on Tuesday.
then I'll try to publish it.  If anyone sees something they would like
changed/added, let me know. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Larry Yunker
 
Network Consultant
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM
To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WISPA] User check program
 
 
 
Hi,
 
 
 
I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do 
 
some basic "connectivity" checking for customers? I had the thought 
 
today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could 
 
download on their PC and then run that would do things like:
 
 
 
(1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results 
 
as well)
 
(2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address
 
(3) Ping a domain name
 
(4) Ping our main email server
 
(5) Ping the customers default gateway
 
(6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the 
 
Internet)
 
(7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local 
 
server and compute the time vs. file size?)
 
(8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to 
 
whatever email address they put in.
 
 
 
It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that 
 
says "Start". Then the results could show a Green Light for each item 
 
that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice 
 
to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface.
 
 
 
Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something 
 
written, unless there is already something close out there?
 
 
 
Travis
 
Microserv
 
 
 
 
 


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


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





  _  



 
 
 


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


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



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

I suppose that it would be possible to derive settings from a web server,
but I was imagining that if your customer was using this tool, they would be
experiencing a connectivity issue.  If they can't connect to the internet,
there is a fairly good chance that they can't reach your web server either.
Thus, the need to keep at least the default settings in a local file of some
sort.  

 

It sounds like at least some of you would like to see this tool be more
versatile and be more of a general monitoring tool that can run in
background all of the time.  If it runs in background and constantly tests
the network, I am concerned with the impact that such testing would have on
wireless network performance.  For instance, in a Waverider network the
dynamic polling determines the percentage of time to allocate to each radio
based on the frequency with which that client "talks" to the network.  If
every radio on the network is sending ping requests every so many minutes,
the AP cannot ignore ANY of the radios and thus the dynamic polling
mechanism fails to work properly.   Is there any sort of workaround to this?
Are radios able to ignore small packets when formulating dynamic polling
allocation?

 

- Larry

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program

 

Could the settings be stored in a file on a web server, and an ini file (or
compiled in file) just point to the file on the web server?  That way, if
your network changes and you want to "re-point" everyone to different ip's,
you just change the one file on your web server, not hundreds of ini files
across your service area.  The logo on the program could just be a pic on
the web server too.  So, even your company logo could be changed en mass.

~Feature Idea~
Also, something I wanted to work on some day was an icon for the
notification bar (in vb.net this is easy).  The icon could use different
colors and the tool tip (or ~GASP~ a pop up!)  to let people know of any
service announcements or outages, etc.  This notification could be another
file on a web server that it checks every 10 minutes or so.  That way, if
something goes down, you don't get 2000 phone calls in a row telling you so
(as long as the customer can still reach the web server...)

Jason

David E. Smith wrote: 

David, there are too many variables, I think, to have a compiled program
with the settings buried into it.  We will want a way to modular-ize it.
Or
it could be done both ways, with the option to set it to "compiled" or
"INI".  The compiled version WOULD make for an easier download and use,
yes.


 
Either all the variables go into an .ini file, or they all go into one
file in the source code. You could even split the difference, and have
default settings compiled in, that are overridden by the presence of a
valid .ini.
 
David Smith
MVN.net
 
 
 
 
 


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/
 
--- AV & Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM) ---
 
 
 
  



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] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

>It also means the program doesn't work with no Windows computers,  
>which are increasingly gaining market share.

True... I don't have a Mac, so I can't building for that market.
While I could and probably will build something for Linux eventually, it
seems irrelevant.  If your client has Linux, they probably know enough about
routing so that this software is unnecessary.

>Or if that's not possible, does anyone have any suggestions as to  
> other
> visual languages which DO NOT USE .NET and which might be used for  
> future
> ports of this application.
>
>Java.

But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC.  The point is to
avoid having to install a separate "Framework".  Ideally, I'd like a linker
that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely upon.





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] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java wins out.
When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would have to
disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years) development
has turned to the .Net platform.  

Regardless, I am still seeking a 3rd option... I'm looking for a good
development platform which can generate standalone exe's for Windows.

- Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program


On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:

>>
> But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC.  The point  
> is to
> avoid having to install a separate "Framework".  Ideally, I'd like a  
> linker
> that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely  
> upon.
>
The Java VM has a far greater market penetration than .NET. Back in my  
software days Java was over 95%.

-Matt




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] User check program

[Larry Yunker]

Tom,

I appreciate all of the useful comments.  Please note that I posted updated
screen shots of the tool yesterday.  Some of the changes that you are
requesting have already been implemented.  For instance, the speed test has
been moved to a separate tab and now only runs if the subscriber switches to
that tab-view.

With regards to the other issues that have been raised I plan to deploy
an initial release of this tool on Sunday.  OBVIOUSLY.. It won't have
everything that everyone has requested.  If I halted deployment for EVERY
request, I would never get any version of the product to market.

After the product is released, I'm going to work on making the subsequent
release even more flexible.  Ideally, I'd like to make the application
completely dynamic so that the ISP can define each ping (hop) that should be
tested for the given client.

I'm also still looking into other languages onto which I might port the
application to so as to make a more compact and portable solution.
Warning... I'm relatively certain that any port to a different language will
be delayed for several weeks.  Unfortunately, my development time is quite
restricted at the moment as I am busy studying for the Ohio Bar Exam.
Besides, learning an entirely new OO language is just going to take a little
time.

BTW, I did pick up an iMac at a garage sale today (for $5), so maybe when
the time comes, I'll even be able to develop a solution for the Apple
platform.

Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program

Two comments...

When we diagnose a client, we are trying to discover six things...

1) Is the PC's Pri NIC active and configured for TCP IP
2) Can they reach their home router
3) Can they reach the first hop cell site/tower
4) Can they reach the far side Backbone edge of network.
5) Can they reach Internet.
6) Is DNS resolving.

So I suggest adding to the test, test to "self". Pinging its own PC IP, to 
confirm NIC Cable plugged in, or interface turned up. (Could be helpful even

if two interfaces on PC, ether and wireless)

#3 is more tricky, because each client might have a different tower IP. So 
this would have to be a custom set IP. It would be left untested, if the ini

file had not been configured with a valid test IP.
I could see the installion tech adding in this IP at time of install. But 
this is an essential test.  It tells the End user, whether it likely that 
their outage is unique to their home. If they can get to the tower, but not 
further, they know there is likely a network wide outage. It also tells the 
end user to reboot the outdoor equipment.

Secondly, I ask us to challenge why we want this tool most. a) To test 
performance, or b) To locate failure points.
These are two very different purposes.  I'd suggest that this tool is most 
useful for option b.

I would have the start test button for Speed test be a sdifferent start 
button than the one that performs all the other uptime tests.  So a Speed 
test isn;t done everytime the end user jsut wants to verify why they can't 
get to the Internet.

I'd like to have a Disclaimer field right under the Speed Test line, that 
was customizable by the ISP in the INI. For example, I'd say... Speed test 
is just a basic test, to get a detailed speed test, goto site at 
www..net. (I'm not saying you can;t make a good speed test, but 
speed testing can be very complicated. I'd hate to see this valuable tool 
get delayed, attempting to optimize speed test methods, or for the 
simplicity of the tool to be compromised."  If there is a place for a 
disclaimer, it could reduce support calls, of I bought a 1.5mb, how come I'm

getting 1mb.  I don;t want to bring that to their attention. It might even 
be a good idea to have an ini setting that allows the ISP to disable the 
speed test option.

It could also be expanded by adding additional buttons to the right of each 
Test.  For example, the MAil Server Test, will give the latency and 
accessibility of the Mail server. A button could be to the right labled 
"test" or "Verify", and then it launch a Telnet to port 25, and print the 
server response.

It could be exspanded by having a "Hints" button to the right of each test, 
to suggest ways to fix.
For example, if Gateway was not responding, it would suggest a) check 
cabling, b) reboot Router, etc.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program


> Super COOLNESS!
>
> I'd contribute some $ for that.
>
>

[WISPA] Internet Monitor Software was "User Check"

[Larry Yunker]

I've prepared Release 1.0.0 SR 16 of the Internet Monitor software for
general release.  The Software is now available for download at:

http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html

 

For more information about the project please refer to the thread on the
WISPA General List regarding "User Check" program.

 

I suspect that this initial release will draw a fair number of change
requests.  For those that are interested in the program, please download and
look over the initial release and submit your comments and requests and I'll
try to follow up with another release towards the end of the week.  One
primary goal of the next release will be to build in a "download updates"
feature so that ISPs won't have to worry about redistributing the software
as improvements are made.  Another goal will be to complete work on the
email results feature.  Stay tuned.  

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Ping?

[Larry Yunker]

No messages in 12 hours. Is the list down?

 




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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

[Larry Yunker]

Just a quick note:  I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software
today. (v. 1.0.0.17)

It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html

 

I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features
in this release.  I also made significant changes to the email-report
mechanism.  It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results
back to the ISP.

 

I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and
downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that
code quite yet.  Hopefully I'll have it within the next week.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

[Larry Yunker]

SOAP might provide a nice solution, but I can think of three potential
problems with using SOAP:

1) It would require me to learn a new language... I know VERY little about
SOAP and almost as little about XML (unfortunately learning new languages
isn't in my schedule for the next month or so).

2) Using SOAP presumes that the ISP has a server which is running or is
capable of installing a SOAP engine. 

3) Using SOAP would require that I develop a platform independent backend
server process to handle the inbound and outbound SOAP messages.

I'd be interested to hear how many ISPs currently use SOAP and of those that
don't how many would be willing/wanting to install a SOAP engine for
purposes of server side message processing.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ryan Langseth
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 7:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

How about a SOAP interface rather than email? That would be a decent way 
to distribute custom updates, config options and send the results.

Ryan
Larry Yunker wrote:
> Just a quick note:  I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor
software
> today. (v. 1.0.0.17)
>
> It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html
>
>  
>
> I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test
features
> in this release.  I also made significant changes to the email-report
> mechanism.  It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results
> back to the ISP.
>
>  
>
> I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and
> downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy
that
> code quite yet.  Hopefully I'll have it within the next week.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry Yunker
>
> Network Consultant
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  
>
>
>
>


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


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


-- 
Ryan Langseth
System Administrator
InvisiMax
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 218.745.6030
Cell: 701.739.1577





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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

[Larry Yunker]

Two questions:

1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and your XP
Pro machines respectively
2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet mask?

Thanks,
Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under
Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask.

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

Just a quick note:  I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor
software
today. (v. 1.0.0.17)

It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html

 

I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test
features
in this release.  I also made significant changes to the email-report
mechanism.  It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test
results
back to the ISP.

 

I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and
downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy
that
code quite yet.  Hopefully I'll have it within the next week.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

[Larry Yunker]

On the Vista machine is it correctly displaying the IP address which is
bound to the adapter that connects to the internet?  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

The Vista machine has two physical, Wireless and wired, XP just one. On
both the sm is 0.0.0.0 and on Vista the gateway shows the same.

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:32 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

Two questions:

1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and
your XP
Pro machines respectively
2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet
mask?

Thanks,
Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under
Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask.

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

Just a quick note:  I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor
software
today. (v. 1.0.0.17)

It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html

 

I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test
features
in this release.  I also made significant changes to the email-report
mechanism.  It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test
results
back to the ISP.

 

I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and
downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy
that
code quite yet.  Hopefully I'll have it within the next week.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

[Larry Yunker]

1) Your web server needs to know what to do with php types (meaning php must
be installed)
2) $uploadDir = '/www/uploadtest'; should be changed to reflect an actual
directory on your server in which the upload.php script resides.  One hint..
in my environment, this path is provided relative to the root directory of
my change-rooted web hosting account.  So /www is actually one level BELOW
the root level of the web server.   

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

I am also curious what needs to be done to the upload.php to make it
work?

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:53 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

On the Vista machine is it correctly displaying the IP address which is
bound to the adapter that connects to the internet?  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

The Vista machine has two physical, Wireless and wired, XP just one. On
both the sm is 0.0.0.0 and on Vista the gateway shows the same.

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:32 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

Two questions:

1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and
your XP
Pro machines respectively
2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet
mask?

Thanks,
Larry


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under
Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask.

Mark 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted

Just a quick note:  I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor
software
today. (v. 1.0.0.17)

It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html

 

I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test
features
in this release.  I also made significant changes to the email-report
mechanism.  It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test
results
back to the ISP.

 

I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and
downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy
that
code quite yet.  Hopefully I'll have it within the next week.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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] Bugs & Install Issues - Internet Monitor

[Larry Yunker]

So that we don't clog up the list with bug reports and installation issues,
I'm going to request that everyone send email me [offlist] if they need
support in setting up the Internet Monitor software or if they have found
any bugs in the software.

I DO appreciate the interest in the software package and I'll be glad to
work with as many of you as time allows.  I really am anxious to work
through these initial bugs and get a stable product out to the ISP community
ASAP.

 

I'll add a link to the distribution web site listing all known issues and
bugs regarding the software so that people can track how and when issues
have been resolved.

 

BTW, I still encourage on-list discussion regarding future features that you
would like to see added to the software.  I'm not trying to stifle useful
discussion here, I'm just suggesting that support requests and bug reports
go offlist to a more appropriate forum.

 

Thanks,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] current market

[Larry Yunker]

Tom,

Very well said.  Talking about "WISPs" as if they were a commodity with one
predefined multiple is very presumptuous.  While there may be some
speculators that are willing to purchase WISPs on a preset multiple, it's
much more likely that a WISP will be dealing with a learned investor who
wants to see a return based on performance.

Larry
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] current market

Travis,

You are asking a flawed question. From what I've learned over the years, 
buyers don't buy "WISPs", they buy guaranteed mechanisms for either "proven 
revenue streams" and/or "potential expansion of revenue streams", and/or 
ability to sustain such revenues.  A seller obviously wants to prove the 
second, to maximize their sale price.

I have seen all to often, where a WISP can't successfully sell their WISP, 
and it ends up getting shut down, or sold for less than the liquidation 
value of the hardware installed, as little as 10% of the equipemnt's new 
purchase cost.  And I've seen a few cases where offers have come in to 
WISPs, as high as 6X annual revenues.

The golden questions to ask are Is the business sellable? Is it 
maintainable by a third party, as is? Is it self sustaining already, from a 
profitabilty point, if it were taken over?

The sell price of a business is not aways based on its value to the buyer, 
but also by the cost to operate (burn rate) of the original owner, and their

desperateness to get out of the business.

To answer your question, you have to first define specifics about the 
situation, and wether the seller is in the position to get a fair offer.

 If one assumes both the buyer's and seller's company are equal, and 
successful businesses, then one can make a generalized starting point for 
market sell cost.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: [WISPA] current market


> Hi,
>
> I know there is no exact number for the buy/sell of a WISP... however,
> there is usually a starting point... and it seems to fluctuate as the
> market changes. So, what is the current starting point for the purchase
> of a small WISP? 6x monthly revenue? 9x? 12x?
>
> thanks,
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
>


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


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





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] CCIE Wireless

[Larry Yunker]

How much of a share in the WISP market does Cisco hold?  It seems to me that
a Cisco specific exam would do little to prove one's worth in the WISP
market.  Besides, at least half of the work in implementing a good wireless
solution comes in at the routing level rather than the physical level.

- Larry

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rogelio
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] CCIE Wireless

I see that there might be a CCIE wireless on the horizon

http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/06/22/wireless-ccie-unofficialy-anno
unced/

Lemme guess, everyone here is going to go take the beta tests to see 
what they're made of, right?




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] DNS help

[Larry Yunker]

I'd check your DNS cache.  There is a good chance that your DNS server
failed to resolve etsy.com at some point and then cached that bad result.

 

-  Larry

-   

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DNS help

 

Ok... I am open for more ideas. I am still unable to resolve www.etsy.com,
but I am able to ping and traceroute from my DNS servers to their IP
addresses.

This is the ONLY domain I am having problems with... no other issues, no
other support calls... just this single domain?

Travis
Microserv

Ryan Langseth wrote: 

just noticed a typo in my query,  but the result is still the same:
 
ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host google.com. ns1.etsy.com
Using domain server:
Name: ns1.etsy.com
Address: 38.106.64.5#53
Aliases:
 
Host google.com not found: 5(REFUSED)
 
On Jun 28, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Ryan Langseth wrote:
 
  

That does not mean they are having issues,  just that they do not
support recursive lookups (considered a security issue in most cases).
 
ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host google.com ns1.etsy.com
Using domain server:
Name: ns1.etsy.com
Address: 38.106.64.5#53
Aliases:
 
Host google.com.admintool.org not found: 5(REFUSED)
ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host www.etsy.com ns1.etsy.com
Using domain server:
Name: ns1.etsy.com
Address: 38.106.64.5#53
Aliases:
 
www.etsy.com has address 72.37.157.20
 
Ryan
 
On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
 


Hi,
 
After getting some help from Ryan Spott, it appears ETSY.COM's DNS
servers are having issues. By using their DNS servers and trying to
do nslookups, every single domain fails with "REFUSED".
 
Travis
Microserv
 
Ryan Langseth wrote:
  

Are the server *NIX servers?
 
try running "host  etsy.com 38.106.64.5" from your DNS servers to
make
sure you are getting connectivity to their DNS servers on 53
 
your output should be similar to :
ns1:/var/log# host etsy.com 38.106.64.5
Using domain server:
Name: 38.106.64.5
Address: 38.106.64.5#53
Aliases:
 
etsy.com has address 72.37.157.20
etsy.com mail is handled by 10 mxin.mxes.net.
 
If you are using bind, you may have a cached query that returned a
bad
value,  you can run "rndc flush" to clear your cached queries.
 
 
Ryan
 
On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:29 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
 
 


Hi,
 
We are currently having a DNS issue with etsy.com. We are able to
ping
and traceroute to their nameservers and webservers, but we are
unable to
resolve their IP info using our DNS servers. Therefore, we have
users
calling us that they can't access the website. Any ideas on where I
could start troubleshooting this? Our DNS guru is gone for a
week. :(
 
Travis
Microserv
 
 


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


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

 


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


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


 


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


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

 
 


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


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


 
 
 


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


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



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

[WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking

[Larry Yunker]

Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality
"Policies"

 

See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp

 

Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant impact
on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks.

 

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Dateline NBC Special on TowerDogs

[Larry Yunker]

"according to figures cited by OSHA, these so-called tower dogs have the
highest death rate per capita of any occupation in the country"

OUCH!!! I can just feel the impact on worker's compensation classification
ratings already!






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] Just what we need.

[Larry Yunker]

While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged
in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.

ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
$19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills included
phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
"naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for $19.95/month
if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
land-line phone service.

Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers to
pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work the
system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted broadband
service.

Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service and
installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for all
other broadband carriers.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return 
regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are 
strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates 
ONLY support tarrifed services.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> Why not?
>
> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband
>> network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy.
>> It
>> will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want.  This should 
>> not
>> be allowed.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>>
>>
>>> Chuck McCown wrote:
 Time to speak up.
>>>
>>> Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak
>>> lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana?
>>>
>>> David Smith
>>> MVN.net
>>>
>>>
>>>


>>> 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] Just what we need.

[Larry Yunker]

Chuck,

I wasn't suggesting that the POTS tariffs were insufficient to support the
POTS infrastructure.  I was drawing the conclusion that most of the large
ILECs have opted to structure their DSL service offering so as to make a
service bundle the only "rational" way to purchase the DSL service.  The
cost differential between Naked-DSL and DSL+Phone is often such that it is
CHEAPER to buy the DSL+Phone.

Thus, the ILEC can force people to choose between continuing to subscribe to
POTS or not getting DSL at all.

As you note... YOU as a non-RBOC ILEC have the option of refusing to offer
"Naked DSL".  I should have been more clear with my initial comments.  My
assumptions are drawn upon the RBOCs (what's left of them).  I believe that
AT&T is under an agreement with the FTC which provides that they must
provide naked DSL in all markets in which they currently of DSL.  I wouldn't
be surprised if Verizon were not under the same sort of agreement.  These
were concessions made when negotiating the approval of the RBOC + LD
megamergers.  Since the RBOCs account for over 90% of the POTS service in
the U.S. I sometimes slip and refer to them generically as ILECs.  As you
validly point out, some independent ILECs continue to exist and have much
more flexibility in their service offerings.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.

Not exactly true.  The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered 
through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements.  It truly supports itself 
nicely.  We do have to option of refusing to offer "Naked DSL".  But that 
extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support.  It goes in our 
pocket to be spent any way we want.


- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.


> While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
> their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful 
> engaged
> in a reverse of the concept.  They have placed the burden of their dying
> POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
>
> ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband
> subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want
> $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills 
> included
> phone service package.  Of course, someone will cry out what about
> "naked-DSL"?  Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you
> roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for 
> $19.95/month
> if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving
> land-line phone service.
>
> Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers 
> to
> pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work
> because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before
> they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work 
> the
> system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our
> next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted 
> broadband
> service.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service 
> and
> installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric
> company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for 
> all
> other broadband carriers.
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
> Not true.  Not true at all.  Cable Companies are not rate of return
> regulated.  Every dollar they spend is below the line.  The ILECS are
> strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line.  Tarrifed rates
> ONLY support tarrifed services.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need.
>
>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 

Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

[Larry Yunker]

You raise two different questions here although it appears that everyone is
answering them as if one in the same.

1) What (private) insurance is required to legally employ climbers? 
2) What worker's compensation insurance is required to legally employ
climbers?

The answer to #1 is generally determined by two factors:

(a) your willingness to assume risk - insurance helps defer risk, but it is
rarely a complete shield against risk.  Your actual risk of loss is
determined largely by the form of your organization.  In most states, you
can organize as a general partnership, a limited partnership, a limited
liability partnership, a limited liability limited partnership, a limited
liability company, a subchapter S-corporation, or a subchapter
K-corporation.  Each provides a different level of protection for your
personal assets.  The effectiveness of your choice of organization will
depend on how well you follow the formalities expected by the government
when running a business.  If you are sloppy with bookkeeping, you mix
business and personal assets, if you under capitalize the business, etc. you
could face tort liability regardless of insurance.  At the extreme, without
proper business planning, you can place not only your business assets but
also your personal assets at risk.

and 

(b) your tower lease agreements.  Many towers will not allow you to put gear
up until you provide not only proof of insurance but also a binder showing
the tower owner as an additional insured on your policy.  

The answer to #2 is state specific.  Each state has its own worker's
compensation program.  In some cases, the program requires that your company
purchase worker's compensation insurance for employees and contractors.  In
some cases, the program requires that you purchase worker's compensation
from private insurance companies.  In some cases you just pay into a state
run insurance pool and don't pay private insurance companies.  Your first
step is to look into the worker's compensation agency in your state.  If the
rules seem too complicated or the clerks at the agency are less than helpful
or if you want further clarification, it's always a good idea to consult an
attorney (shameless plug ;).  The following web site has a good list of
worker's compensation agency information:

http://www.comp.state.nc.us/ncic/pages/all50.htm

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary (insurance, etc.)

If I could split off this topic to something very related. What
insurance/workers comp are being held to legally employ climbers? I'm
assuming two climbers minimum are on staff? We are getting to the point
where it would benefit us to have our own climbers but the decision
makers are intimidated by the logistics of keeping such a high risk
position on payroll. Suggestions?

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John McDowell
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:34 AM
To: motorola; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Climber Salary

I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?

-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and
privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or
any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message
in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to
spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or
the
source, please contact the sender directly.




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/

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1558 - Release Date:
7/17/2008 9:56 AM




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

--

Re: [WISPA] Input Needed - Average number of CPE per WISP ?

[Larry Yunker]

Because many WISPs operate as part-time or shoe-string type operations, I
would venture to say that the average WISP has less than 1000 CPE deployed.
 
On the other hand, if you were to ask the question in a different manner...
perhaps frame the question:

Of those WISPs that have at least one employee other than the owner, how
many CPE does the average WISP have?

Then I think the 1000-2000 CPE range is more accurate.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group
Subject: [WISPA] Input Needed - Average number of CPE per WISP ?

Guys and Gals,

To help prepare for a planned FCC trip, I would appreciate your input on 
the following question.

"In your opinion, what is the average number of CPEs deployed per 
independent WISP?"

I'm not looking for the number of CPEs that YOU have deployed unless you 
believe that your number is exactly the average of all independent 
WISPs. I'm looking for the number that you believe the "average" 
independent WISP has deployed. By "independent WISP" I'm not referring 
to large national carriers, I'm referring to the "typical" type of WISP 
operation that you are familiar with.

I figure if I can get 30 responses then I'll have good data. I don't 
want to "flood" the lists with 500 responses so after about 25 or 30 
replies, I should have all the data I need. I guess what I'm saying is 
that the "time to live" for this thread may be as short as 8 hours.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Respectfully,

jack (WISPA FCC Committee Chair)

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
Vendor-Neutral Wireless Design-Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
FCC License # PG-12-25133 Profile 
Phone 818-227-4220  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>







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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for
its P2P throttling.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos
es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html

 

It's set to be vote on officially next Friday.  This is a disturbing
decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P
traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks.

 

Regards,

Larry Yunker

Network Consultant

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

>Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a
>usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet
>they (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance.

I would have to disagree.  It would appear that in this case, the FCC would
be treating an internet provider similar to a cable-tv provider.  I think
that the FCC could rely on it's holding in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC
to support it's "need" to interfere with internet provider's freedom to
contract.

In Turner, the court held that it "has an independent interest in preserving
a multiplicity of broadcasters."  It would seem that it is following that
same tenor when it is forcing internet providers to allow "equal footing"
for all services.

I personally don't agree with this notion, I think that a greater harm will
flow because the number of potential internet providers could be reduced
from such drastic measures or in the alternative the cost of internet
services could skyrocket due to bit-caps.

Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] More FCC News - Net Neutrality

[Larry Yunker]

>I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the 
>month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water 
>to fill my pool was going to cost me.

The problem with that analogy is two fold:

(1) you can physically see 25,000 gallons of water that you intentionally
put in your pool whereas you cannot see the 25Gigs of data that has been
downloaded from your laptop when you download a P2P client and that client
software automatically enables sharing. 

(2) you are presuming that someone INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE INCREASED USAGE.
My wife works for the local village and she frequently takes calls from
local citizens who have complaints about their water bills.  Most customers
who call in to complain, have something broken that caused the excessive
water charges.  For instance, they might have a toilet that won't stop
running.  Similar circumstances occur in the internet world when a P2P
program automatically shares data with the world OR when a virus evades your
computer and spews volumes of data worthless data out to the net.

Bottom line.. if you institute bit caps be ready for a barrage of excuses as
to why it wasn't your customer's fault and why you need to reset the meter.

- Larry










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 Injunction

[Larry Yunker]

Jerry,

As with all good legal questions, the answer is: "It Depends".

If the HAM operator is INTENTIONALLY interfering with your signal, then you
have a very good chance of maintaining a cause of action against him (IMHO).
If on the other hand, he was unaware of your signal at the time that he put
up his equipment, you have very little chance of maintaining an action.  The
iffy party is when he falls in between knowing and intentional.  If he knew
you were out there, but he didn't mean to shut you down, there is an
argument both ways as to whether he is liable.

I guess the first thing is to determine whether he knew you were operating
on the same frequency as the one on which he was planning to deploy.

Regards,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

DISCLAIMER: The above comments are solely an opinion and should not be
construed to be legal advice.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:45 PM
To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Motorola Canopy User Group
Subject: [WISPA] Court Injunction

Is it possible to get an injunction against a HAM if he moved to a
900MHz frequency as is causing interference that would disrupt our
ability to do business? I know he has a license and I don't however
there must be some precedent that allows for commercial venture versus
amateur radio.
 
Any ideas?
 
 
Jerry Richardson
VP Operations
925-260-4119
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Story on Telco Bit Caps

[Larry Yunker]

I suspect that IF there is a legal issue here, it will be whether the
subsequent modification of the terms of the contract was disclosed and
whether the customer had a real opportunity to reject the contract after
disclosure of the new terms.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that currently prohibits an
internet provider from setting bandwidth caps.  Of course, I'm sure that the
folks in D.C. will be reviewing that situation now that the practice has
received airtime in the mainstream media.  If this one goes before the FCC,
the WISP community would be wise to comment.  There is no need for a band on
bandwidth caps.

Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Story on Telco Bit Caps

I certainly hope it's not illegal.  That'd spell bad news for us all if it 
was...  I do, however, disagree with a meager 5 GB.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Story on Telco Bit Caps


> Any telcom lawyers on the list who can comment on the legality of
> bandwidth caps? Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the
> various laws/regulations this seems to be very close to illegal if not
> outrightly so. However I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I should chat with the
> EFF.
>
> Thanks for the link Jeff!
>
> Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080822/tec_internet_caps.html?.v=2
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


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


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





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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] Initial SR9 test results

[Larry Yunker]

What antenna/cable solution are you using on the client side of the link? 
How far are you trying to shoot?


- Larry

- Original Message - 
From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results



Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

Vertical and horizontal were tried.  The results are the same.

Thanks Lonnie...we're trying some Mikrotik with the 900 cards and not
having much luck through the trees using a 900 120* sector H-pol

Leon


Lonnie

On 9/17/06, *Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838

I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear.  Needless to say
this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place
in our tool chest.  Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through
some
trees.  This is truly NON LOS.


Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use?

Thanks leon

-- 
*Leon Zetekoff*

Proprietor
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
 505 B Main Street


Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common
 Want a signature like
this? 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 

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

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







--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/


--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
 505 B Main Street

Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common  Want
a signature like this? 









--
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] Initial SR9 test results

[Larry Yunker]

How much difference are you seeing?  2db or more?

- Original Message - 
From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results



Larry Yunker wrote:

Let us know more about the configuration(s) and maybe we can figure
out what else you should try.

OK here's the Sector antenna:

http://www.teletronics.com/tant900sector12-5dbi.html

The yagi's are PacWireless YA9-13

Interesting that at the customer with the yagi in the attic, the
CPE-tower signal was weaker than the tower-CPE signal. Both running the
Ubiquiti 900 cards on a  RB112 and the sector antenna is 12.5 db gain so
you would think the signals at each end should be pretty close.

THanks leon








--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln

[Larry Yunker]

I'd be interested to know what sort of equipment you find for use in that 
band.  As I understand it, 10Mhz is for base-to-mobile and the other 10Mhz 
is for mobile-to-base.  That is a much different model than most 
license-exempt equipment.


- Larry

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

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln


The band is 2110 to 2120 MHz and 1710 to 1720 MHz. (20 MHz of spectrum) 
There are some other hurdles yet to jump. You would think buying it would 
be enough but it is far from usable yet. I'll let you know as we get 
closer to the launch of licensed broadband services here.

Scriv


Mac Dearman wrote:


CONGRATS Scriv!
I don't think that you will be guilty of just "squatting" on such lovely 
frequency eh?


Did you get 700MHz in the AWS-1?

I wish I had some too :-(
Mac


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln

We won an AWS license in our area!
:-)
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



FCC wireless auction raises almost $13.9 bln

Last Update: 5:13 PM ET Sep 18, 2006

(Adds quote in third paragraph and details about Verizon in sixth and 
seventh paragraphs.)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Communications Commission on 
Monday wrapped up an auction of licenses to provide new wireless 
services, generating almost $13.9 billion in gross proceeds and handing 
T-Mobile USA Inc. the capacity it needs to compete with larger rivals.
T-Mobile, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG (DT), was the top bidder, bidding 
almost $4.2 billion for 120 licenses. Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $2.8 
billion for 13 licenses. A consortium that includes cable giants Comcast 
Corp. (CMCSA, CMCSK) and Time Warner Inc. (TWX), along with Sprint Nextel 
Corp. (S), agreed to pay almost $2.4 billion for 137 licenses. As a 
result of their aggressive early moves, many potential new players were 
squeezed out of the game before it got going.
"The dream of new entrants that would shake up the market died," said 
Roger Entner, an analyst for technology research firm Ovum. "The usual 
suspects have won."
The last time an FCC auction drew more bidding was in 2001, when 
regulators reauctioned some licenses they had repossessed from NextWave 
Telecom Inc. But in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had 
improperly reclaimed the licenses, returning control to NextWave and 
invalidating the auction.
This time, T-Mobile had the most at stake. Although it is the 
fourth-largest U.S. wireless carrier, it has lacked the capacity to 
upgrade its network to run third-generation, or 3-G services. The new 
licenses will put T-Mobile in a more competitive position.
Verizon Wireless, meanwhile, will likely sit on its spectrum. The No. 2 
wireless carrier, a joint venture between Verizon Communications (VZ) and 
Vodafone Group Plc (VOD), has a next-generation network called 
Evolution-Data Optimized, or EV-DO. It doesn't need to use the new 
spectrum for that network. Verizon Wireless is seen using the spectrum 
for wireless technology that is further down the line, although it's 
unclear what that technology may be.
A spokesman for Verizon Wireless wasn't immediately available for 
comment.
Smaller carriers were able to expand their coverage from select cities to 
a much larger area. For example, Leap Wireless International Inc. (LEAP), 
a smaller, regional company, won 99 licenses, bidding $710 million for 
airwaves covering cities including Washington D.C., Philadelphia, 
Baltimore, and St. Louis.
"Leap's push to acquire more spectrum in new high-growth market clusters 
located in urban and suburban areas such as Baltimore, Washington, D.C., 
and Philadelphia will help it withstand the continuous competitive 
pressure from larger... competitors such as Sprint-Nextel and Verizon," 
Jessica Zufolo, an analyst at research firm Medley Advisors, wrote in a 
note to clients.
The U.S. Treasury will receive just $13.7 billion from its latest auction 
because of rules that permit small companies to earn discounts of as much 
as 25%.


http://tinyurl.com/j77nv

---
---



--
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] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

[Larry Yunker]

While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical to 
install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help 
when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they "deafen" the 
subscriber radios.


- Larry


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

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every system 
needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:

ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 
bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 
930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same thing were to occur at 
the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, 
horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced.  They also may be requesting to 
use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more 
important than unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is granted, specifics 
should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with 
existing unlicensed band users.  Remember that the goal may not only be to 
use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, 
that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 
700M-900M solutions.


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



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain

[Larry Yunker]

900Mhz noise sources:

1) Paging Systems
2) Other 900Mhz-based Broadband providers
3) Cordless Telephones
4) SCADA (utility monitoring and management systems)
5) Meter Readers
6) Power or Pipeline Companies (often used for non-SCADA-based monitoring)
7) Other consumer devices (baby monitors, cordless headphones, cordless 
speakers)

8) licensed usage of segments of 902-928Mhz
9) Old cell towers?

- Larry


- Original Message - 
From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Joe Laura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 


Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain


I hear this talk about the 900MHz noise.  It's not too bad here.  Moving 
forward, what are the new sources of 900MHz noise if my area is ok now?  I 
hear a lot about pagers.  Pagers!?  What are those?  LOL  Are there new 
paging sites going online?  I'm just looking for what will cause me trouble 
in the future.




Brian

Joe Laura wrote:


Sectors are also great for helping with interference. I guess if your
spectrum is clean and you think it will stay that way then an omni would 
be

fine.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain




Problem is I might only get 10-15 subs at these sites in the next year.
Lets say I can buy 10 APs.  I'd rather have 10 sites with omni's than 5
sites with 180* sectors.
At 15 subs a site I'd have 150 subs on 10 omni's at $35 a month.  That
is $5250 a month.
If I sectorize 5 sites with 15 subs that is 75 subs and only $2625 added
to the monthly income.

Back to reality.  I can't afford 10 APs.but still, I don't see
sectors as being such a great thing.  What is the point of doubling the
cost of a pop for no gain of subscribers?

Back to my question.  If a guy wanted to use omni's for 900.  What is a
good choice?

Brian
Chris Cooper wrote:



We have a legacy 900 omni at 750' AGL. It really reaches out and touches
remote customers, but it is visible to every other cell in the region 
and
affects channel planning.  Stick to sectors, they might be more 
expensive



up


front but long term you will have more options.

c

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:40 PM
To: Barry at Mutual Data; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain


Due to the eirp limits at 900 (36dB total) your antenna choice really


should


take into account the radio gain first.

Having said that, a lot of people put in the high gain 900 omni antennas


and


don't seem to have much trouble with them.

I agree with the sector idea though.

The 900 that I'm using now is trango.  They have almost got the full 
eirp

built right in to the radio/antenna system as it comes from the factory.
The down side is that it takes 6 ap's to cover 360*.  That can get


spendy.


Especially if you pay rent per antenna.

As a rule, we are sectorizing more and more sites these days.  Even the


ones


out in the sticks.  There are too many other users out there showing up


all


of the time.

latetrs,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: "Barry at Mutual Data" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain






Hello Brian,

No more then 8db in my playbook anymore. And horz. if at all possible.

Sectors on 900 is the best way to go too.

I got an Antel 11db with downtilt that I would sell if you really want 
a

vertical omni. Heavy duty antenna.

Barry

Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 8:20:28 AM, you wrote:

BR> I looking for input on what vertical 900 omni to use.  I have heard
BR> statements from Marlon like "I'd never use a 2.4 omni over such and
such
BR> gain.", because of the beamwidth and such.  Anyway what are the
BR> opinions of the use of the 900 omni?
BR> http://www.pacwireless.com/products/omni_900mhz.shtml

BR> Brian



--
Best regards,
Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date:


11/3/2006






--
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

Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain

[Larry Yunker]

Larry Yunker wrote:


900Mhz noise sources:

1) Paging Systems


is is likely new sites are being deployed?

It is likely that SOMEONE has already licensed the spectrum...
If there is a market for pager services, they will eventually deploy.
If there is no perceived market, they will likely sit on the license until 
forced to give it up.



2) Other 900Mhz-based Broadband providers


should be able to channel plan and work with them

You can work with them if:
(1) they don't drop in a Canopy Cluster
(2) they don't use an Alvarion or other FREQUENCY HOPPING type radio


3) Cordless Telephones


shouldn't effect me THAT much
Cordless Telephones are usually only a problem when houses are grouped close 
together.  One of the biggest problems that I experienced with 900Mhz was 
when we would hook up a client INSIDE a neighborhood and later find out that 
his neighbor had a 900Mhz cordless phone.  Every time that the neighbor 
would receive a call, my client would lose signal.  AND for those 
lurking this particular link was a Waverider showing -70 RSSI with 
a -90+ noise floor.  The damn cordless phone was the ONLY problem with the 
link.



4) SCADA (utility monitoring and management systems)


should be able to channel plan and work with them

Most SCADA systems are FREQUENCY HOPPING... you can't plan around those.


5) Meter Readers


shouldn't this only be in city limits?
I've only seen 900Mhz meter-readers within a city-limits.  As long as you 
are broadcasting and receiving a few miles outside of the nearest city, you 
probably won't have issues.


6) Power or Pipeline Companies (often used for non-SCADA-based 
monitoring)


don't know about this one
Get a 900Mhz spectrum analyzer and drive your area or better yet connect it 
to an antenna up HIGH on the tower that you plan on using... see what kind 
of noise you see.


7) Other consumer devices (baby monitors, cordless headphones, cordless 
speakers)


shouldn't effect me THAT much
The only consumer device that ever knocked me out was the cordless phones... 
but I did have to tell a customer not to use his cordless headphones while 
on the internet... the 900mhz cordless headphones were causing packet-loss.



8) licensed usage of segments of 902-928Mhz


don't know what is in my area

Look it up on the FCC web site.


9) Old cell towers?


not here.  We just got cell service.  Too rural to have "old" technology 
anything

No OLD Analog cell service?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment

[Larry Yunker]

This should not be a big surprise.  The Democratic Party's platform has 
always yielded higher taxes.  This story just shows one of many ways that a 
Democratic-lead Congress is likely to spread-the-hurt.


Sorry folks, but it is a grim day in my opinion.  Taxes are going up, 
cost-of-business is going up.  Regulation is going up.  I know that a lot of 
Americans are tired of the war and would like to see a more active social or 
economic agenda in Washington... but allowing Congress to be harsh on 
business and harsh on consumers will just serve to put us back in a 
recession.


- Larry




- Original Message - 
From: "chris cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment



...And here I thought the big red bullseye was painted on the middle
east. So far we have dumped $341 billion down that shaft

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227778,00.html

You just got a big red bullseye painted on your back.

While I"m not trying to be partisan...  YOU are the main target.
Whether
it's digging into your pocket for "benefits" congress wants to "give"
your
employees, to just shafting you as hard and deep as possible for tax
money,
we ARE the target.

I'd love to see some good informed financial advisors on here give some
advice on how to deal with the future.


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date:
11/7/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment

[Larry Yunker]

So how do you "duck for cover"?


Re-incorporate as a foreign owned/based business?  Our legislature seems to 
be fine with allowing the mortgaging of america to foreign entities.  If you 
can somehow become a foreign entity, you can probably avoid all sorts of tax 
liability.


No... I'm not really advocating this method of tax dodge.  I'm just 
frustrated at those that would repeal the tax breaks that have made the 
small business sector flurish over the two past decades.  It has been shown 
that small businesses account for more new job growth than "big business". 
So why target us?


If you seriously are concerned about tax liability and changes to the tax 
code, your first step should be to seek out a CPA or Tax Attorney.  They can 
tell you how to take advantage of tax breaks in the code and can tell you 
when those tax breaks go away (if they have sun-set provisions).  The 179 
deduction, the estate-tax breaks, the capital-gains tax breaks, and various 
other incentives to invest have deadlines after which they either must be 
renewed or they go back to the old-higher rates.  That is huge when it comes 
to capital gains.  For instance: If you were to sell your business today and 
qualify for long-term capital gains, you would pay 15% on the capital gains 
portion of the sale.  But if five years from now, the capital gains tax goes 
back to the old rate, you will get hit for over 30% if I'm not mistaken. 
I'll have more definitive examples tomorrow as I start cramming for my 
Accounting & Financial Statements for Lawyers exam.


- Larry




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] America's InternetDisconnect

[Larry Yunker]

Peter R. wrote:

FCC Commissioner Mike Copps writes an editorial for the Wash. Post

http://tinyurl.com/ymuanq

America's Internet Disconnect

By Michael J. Copps
Wednesday, November 8, 2006; Page A27

America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it
should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in 
the
country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay 
too
much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things 
are

only going to get worse if we don't do something about it.


Where was he on net neutrality?  Where was he when AT&T and Bellsouth 
merged?  Is he just blowin' more smoke?  Or did he just wake up from a 
six-year slumber?


He was in the 2 person minority on a 5 person commission... he couldn't act. 
I suspect that now that their has been a shift of power in Washington, he 
will be a more vocal dissent... After all, if the Democrats take the 
Whitehouse in 2008, the new president will be appointing a new FCC Chairman.


- Larry


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square footcoverage

[Larry Yunker]

A regular Linksys BEFW11 (standard best-buy type router) claims 300ft range 
indoors and 1500ft outdoors.


AlphaShild's 1.2M sq foot coverage sounds impressive, but if I'm not 
mistaken, that would amount to roughly 1095ft x 1095ft.  That's not terribly 
better than the Linksys.


- Larry



- Original Message - 
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 5:29 AM
Subject: [WISPA] AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square 
footcoverage




AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square foot coverage

Posted Dec 7th 2006 6:46PM by Donald Melanson
Filed under: Wireless
Canadian company AlphaShield has taken the wraps off its new AS-8800 
wireless router, promising a mighty 1.2 million square feet of coverage 
(in ideal conditions, no doubt). Supposedly, the router's Power-G 
technology (not to be confused with Super-G, Xtreme-G, or Kenny G) gives 
it up to 20 times more power than traditional routers, allowing for the 
wireless signal to pass through concrete walls with ease and giving you 
speeds up to 108Mbps over a distance of 1,200 feet indoors and 3,900 feet 
outdoors. To round out the package, AlphaShield's also outfitted the 
router with no less than five Gigabet Ethernet ports, as well as a 
firewall, USB print server, and VPN support, among other standard router 
features. You'll have to wait a bit to put all that range to the test 
yourself, however, with the router set to launch in January for $250.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !

[Larry Yunker]

Your story points out that there is a difference between being RIGHT and 
WINNING.  Here, the ISP was RIGHT and won judgment in the court of law.  But 
they LOST in the economic terms.  This is definately something every ISP 
should consider long and hard before suing a client.


- Larry Yunker


- Original Message - 
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:54 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !



A local dial up provider in town here missed billing a client for 2
years. The owner contacted the guy and he refused to pay $400. The owner
took him to court. The client said he never got billed and shouldn't
have to pay. The The judge said "If you didn't use it then you shouldn't
have to pay but since you accessed the service multiple times over the 2
years you have to pay." The guy was ordered in court to pay and he did.
Needless to say the ISP owner lost that client from his subscriber base.
The ISP looked really bad and I am sure that has deterred some people
from going with his service. You may ask how I know all this Well
that client switched to my service now.

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 Jenco Wireless
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !

I just sent him an e-mail:



Hello Mr. XXX . We just did a review of our credit card billing and
realized that we have not successfully billed your account since
7/26/05.
Our credit card service tried to bill you a few times (6), but for some
reason was declined payment.  Due to the timing of the catastrophic
lightning strike we had in August '05, we did not catch this situation.
We
realize that some of this is our issue, since we did not catch it, but
some
may be on your end as well for the same reason (not noticing the fact
that a
charge for our service has not been incurred for the last 15 months).
We
would like to know your thoughts on how you think we should proceed with
this?


Thank you,

Me


** Note - Why do the people who seem to be the nicest you have ever met
seem
to turn in to the biggest "a-holes" as soon as there is a 1 second
"glitch"
in their otherwise perfect Internet service :-)  :-) **








On 12/10/06, Jenco Wireless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Thanks everyone !





On 12/10/06, Scott Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would also go to customer and explain what happened.  Most people
> expect to pay for what they get.  I would probably accept what ever

he

> offered, but if less than 1/2, I might suggest the 1/2.
>
> Jenco Wireless wrote:
> > Hi.  About 15 months ago I had my main tower get hit by lightning
> > (catastrophic hit).  It took me a little while to get all of the

bugs

> > worked
> > out with the repairs.  During this time I had a customer's credit

card

> > get
> > declined.  I deactivated his card, then forgot to move him to our
> > invoicing
> > system.  He never called to say "hey - I'm not getting billed"
> (imagine
> > that), and I just now did a credit card check to find this
> problem.  What
> > would you do?
> >
> > a) My mistake - let it go.  Bill him from the current month.
> >
> > b) Try to bill his CC for the full amount (ouch!!)  (Our customers
> > sign an
> > agreement that we will automatically bill their CC monthly).
> >
> > c) Send him a bill for the full amount.
> >
> > d) Disconnect his service and let the past "un-charges" slide,

then

> > charge
> > him $200 to reconnect his service.
> >
> > e) Any other ideas?
> >
> > I am opting for "a" above because it was my mistake.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brad H
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> www.nwwnet.net
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date:
12/9/2006 3:41 PM


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.

Re: [WISPA] salary

[Larry Yunker]

IF your company is making money, the salary that you pay the CEO (assuming 
that you ARE the CEO) is really highly dependent on tax liability.


If you have your company set up as a pass-through tax entity such as a LLC, 
S Corporation, or god forbid a plain-jane partnership, then you are getting 
taxed directly on the organizations revenues.  You need to make sure that 
you pay yourself a "living wage" + enough to cover your tax liability on the 
organization's revenue.  Aside from that, you are just as well off if you 
leave the money in the company as if you took the money out of the company. 
If you leave money in the company, you still own that money as "equity" in 
the company as retained earnings.


On the other hand, if you are set up a C-corp, there are entirely different 
considerations as how to determine your salary.  We all know that a C-corp 
is a non-pass-through tax entity.  Therefore, any net profit before taxes 
are taxed at the company's tax rate and then taxed again if the company 
makes a distribution to you as a stockholder in the form of a dividend. 
Your first instinct would be to give yourself a big salary in order to 
minimize the tax burden of the company.  However, you might find that the 
company has a lower tax rate than you do personally.  Therefore, there are 
circumstances, especially with small closely-held corporations where it 
makes most sense to grant yourself a small salary and then give yourself a 
big dividend to take advantage of the 15% capital gains tax-rate.  There are 
also some methods for granting yourself stock options that yield an expense 
for the company and at the same time provide a capital gains distribution to 
you as an employee.


The bottom line is that the number you pay your CEO should be determined not 
only by what your company can currently bear but also upon what will protect 
your equity from the taxman.  What other company's pay their CEO shouldn't 
really figure into the equation.  It's more important that you figure out 
how to retain your equity/earnings and at the same time provide sufficient 
funding for the growth and prosperity of your business.


Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] salary



Hi,

Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;)

What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the 
percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue...


Travis
Microserv
--
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] salary

[Larry Yunker]

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary



Check with your CPA on that.
The IRS likes to see salary and other activities that represent that your 
"company" really is a company and not a tax shelter so that you avoid the 
sole proprietor tax schedule.
(It's called piercing the veil -- if you don't have minutes and annual 
shareholder meetings and run it like a business, you lose the corporate 
shield for tax purposes AND for liability as in civil litigation).


I think you are on the mark here... according to what I picked up through my 
Business Planning coursework, the IRS has fairly consistently applied a 
reasonableness test to the salary of a CEO who is also a majority 
shareholder.  But reasonable is a fairly broad term.  Zero would not be 
reasonable in any case, but $10,000 or more might meet the reasonableness 
standard for companies with limited revenues.  On the other hand, if your 
company is turning $1MM in sales, you better be paying your full time CEO 
substantially more than $10,000 because the IRS will see right through that 
ploy.  In addition, if you try to pay the CEO through an incentive program 
(dividends or stock options) in lieu of salary, the IRS will treat the 
capital-gains as real income and will tax the CEO at the higher personal 
rate.  You have to provide a balance of salary and other non-salary 
incentives in order to get the maximum tax advantage.


- Larry




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Letters of Intent

[Larry Yunker]

The contents of a letter of intent will vary greatly depending upon what 
purpose you hope to serve through execution of the document.
If I remember my Contracts course correctly, a letter of intent is not 
necessarily binding in any way (however, in the correct circumstances it 
might be made binding).  The courts consider three different types of 
letters of intent:

(1) "agreements to agree" - generally not inforceable
(2) "agreements with open terms" - key points have been agreed upon and the 
parties are bound, but additional gaps can be filled by some other 
authoritative source if necessary (i.e. the UCC)
(3) "contract to negotiate" - parties exchange promises to negotiate in goof 
faith.  All contracts contain an implied warranty of good faith and fair 
dealing, but some courts have agreed that the letter of intent strengthens 
your position if there is a breach of good faith.  The problem is that most 
courts have not decided this issue and/or refuse to hear it.  FYI, as far as 
I know, the Washington state supreme court has refused to decide this issue.


As a former owner of a WISP, the first document that I had drafted was a 
non-disclosure agreement.  That document should help protect each party's 
interests with regards-to misappropriation of information and unfair trade 
practices while each side shares sensitive information and decides whether a 
purchase agreement is advisable.


Best of Luck,
Larry Yunker
Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

P.S. DISCLAIMER - As a law student (not a lawyer), I must indicate that the 
information included in this document should not be construed to be legal 
advise.  You are advised to seek out the assistance of a licensed attorney 
who practices within your jurisdiction.



- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Letters of Intent


Hello,

Would any of your like to share a copy of a letter of intent to buy out
another party?

I have the chance to buy out another ISP/WISP.

Thanks!

ryan

--
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/