[WISPA] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)

[Matt Liotta]

This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of 
device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply 
listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would 
make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a 
monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would 
allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which 
their network is operating in.

-Matt

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

> I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for
> each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location.
> How much do these radios run and who sells them on here?
> Scriv




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Matt Liotta]

Doesn't a circularly polarized antenna actually accept more noise? I mean if 
you have a vertically polarized antenna than horizontal noise is reduced by 
20db and vice versa. Whereas, there is no such penalty for a circularly 
polarized antenna regarding vertically and horizontally polarized noise. In 
fact, only the opposite circularly polarized patten has a penalty.

-Matt

On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Cameron Crum wrote:

> Actually, Mike I like your original idea about circularly polarized 
> antennas for these bands. They are by nature, very broadband, and don't 
> need to be extremely big. At these frequencies, propagation is so much 
> better, that you wouldn't super high gain...and probably wouldn't want 
> it. Besides that, the circ. pol will help filter out a lot of the 
> unwanted noise.
> 
> Cameron
> 
> On 4/5/2010 12:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>> Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design and
>> you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn I
>> could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think trombone
>> with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger than an
>> antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
>> antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.
>> 
>> Friendly Regards,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> Mike Gilchrist
>> Disruptive Technologist
>> Advanced Wireless Express
>> P.O. Box 255
>> Toledo, IA   52342
>> 239.770.6203
>> m...@aweiowa.com
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> 
>> While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most
>> separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would
>> 
>> need to stock too many different antenna models.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From: "Mike"
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'"
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> 
>> 
>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
>>> the
>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
>>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>> 
>>> Friendly Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>> P.O. Box 255
>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>> 239.770.6203
>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>> 
>>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>> 
>>> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>>> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>>> right.
>>> 
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>> 
>>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>>> Engineering
>>> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>> 
>>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>> 
>>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
>>> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
>>> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
>>> making
>>> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
>>> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>>

Re: [WISPA] Building Heights?

[Matt Liotta]

Skyscrapers.com is often useful in major cities.

-Matt

On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Charles Hooper wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Does anyone know a reliable source/method of getting building heights? 
> Something like a topographical map that included buildings would be 
> excellent, but I haven't been able to find anything like this.
> 
> Thanks!
> 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/

Re: [WISPA] BIP/BTOP

[Matt Liotta]

Tuesday, March 2, 2010
NTIA and RUS will grant a limited extension of time to file infrastructure 
applications in the second funding round. Specifically, applicants for BTOP 
Comprehensive Community Infrastructure projects will have until March 26th to 
file their applications to NTIA. Applicants for BIP infrastructure projects 
will have until March 29th to file their applications to RUS. Applications in 
NTIA's two other project categories - Public Computer Centers and Sustainable 
Broadband Adoption - remain due on March 15th.

-Matt

On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

> I don't see anything about that listed on broadbandusa.gov. The only posting 
> for today is the latest winners from round one. Where are you looking?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:51 AM, ccoo...@intelliwave.com wrote:
> 
>> For those of you following the game, BB USA advises that they have  
>> extended the deadline on both BIP and BTOP applications.
>> 
>> Chris Cooper
>> Intelliwave
>> 
>> 
>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> --
> Chuck Bartosch
> Clarity Connect, Inc.
> 200 Pleasant Grove Road
> Ithaca, NY 14850
> (607) 257-8268
> 
> "When the stars threw down their spears,
> and water'd heaven with their tears,
> Did He smile, His work to see?
> Did He who made the Lamb make thee?"
> 
>> From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Clear

[Matt Liotta]

They have to do something. If they don't start adding customers soon their 
first mover advantage is going to be lost.

-Matt

On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:

> They've met with our datacenter folks and been on the roof numerous times.
> To me, that says they're getting ready to make some sort of move.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> 
>> Interesting. They are installing equipment on towers in our area (after
>> having leases for 4+ years) but I'm not seeing Orlando as a current or
>> future area. Actually I'm not seeing future areas (just in the legend).
>> Maybe I have the wrong map.
>> 
>> http://www.clear.com/coverage
>> 
>> Dylan
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:20 PM
>> To: wireless@wispa.org
>> Subject: [WISPA] Clear
>> 
>> In looking at Clear's web site, they have a green for areas that are
>> covered now and a dark grey for future coverage.  Does anyone know how
>> quickly they expect to fill that coverage?  How quickly they'll expand
>> beyond their future coverage?
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] new FCC report out

[Matt Liotta]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf

* 35% percent of americans unserved

* "We need to tackle the challenge of connecting 93 million Americans to our 
broadband future," said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement timed 
with the release of the survey. "In the 21st century, a digital divide is an 
opportunity divide."

* 29% stated they received service from a fixed wireless provider

** Notwithstanding the possible confusion reflected in the survey responses, it 
seems likely that the vast majority of home broadband access is wireline. In 
fact, estimates place wireless home broadband access at 2 percent of homes—that 
would include fixed wireless or satellite service.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool for 477 reporting data at the tract level

[Matt Liotta]

You raise the money. I'll do the programming. WISPA can keep the money.

-Matt

On Feb 18, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Mac Dearman wrote:

> I would be glad to start a $$ pool to have someone develop a tool for WISPA
> members to get the data we need for the form 477. On second thoughts - - it
> would be better if we allowed everyone to use it (members and non members)
> if we could just get them to report!
> 
> Mac
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Rick Harnish
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:48 PM
>> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA List';
>> 'Motorla List Beehive'; 'WISPA Board'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool
>> for 477 reporting data at the tract level
>> 
>> WISPA will gladly place this on our webpage if we can find someone to
>> help
>> get it in place.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Brian Webster
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:20 PM
>> To: WISPA List; memb...@wispa. org; Motorla List Beehive; WISPA Board
>> Subject: [WISPA Members] Possible way to create a free tool for 477
>> reporting data at the tract level
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I just found this web page that talks about a free API that could be
>> used on
>> a web page to do address lookup/geocode as well as map to the proper
>> census
>> tract and/or census block. I'm not a programmer but maybe someone on
>> the
>> list could look at this and put together something that could be used.
>> Ideally it would do both single and batch lookups. If there is a way to
>> also
>> standardize the address fields to increase the accuracy that would be a
>> big
>> plus.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://webgis.usc.edu/Services/Geocode/WebService/GeocoderWebService.a
>> spx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank You,
>> 
>> Brian Webster
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2691 - Release Date:
>> 02/17/10
>> 07:35:00
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> -
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> ---
>> -
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2694 - Release Date:
>> 02/17/10 22:30:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Regulators may drop broadband line-sharing bombshell

[Matt Liotta]

I don't think this is good. The last time it was tried we got a bunch of 
unsustainable business models along with increasing gamesmanship from the 
ILECs. Besides, the RBOCs are looking for reasons to shutdown their wireline 
operations anyway. This will only speed that up.

I think we need smarter policy to increase competition. How about fair and 
reasonable real estate access? WISPA should be all over that one. I know every 
business WISP has run into an unreasonable landlord. I also sure plenty of 
residential WISPs have had their share of landlord problems.

-Matt

On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:

> < 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/regulators-may-drop-broadband-line-sharing-bombshell.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
>  >
> 
> Could be good?
> 
> Scottie
> 
> Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
> Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show

[Matt Liotta]

Seems like a logical position if the purpose of the show is to drive WISPA 
membership. Maybe the existing members want a show for another purpose.

-Matt

On Feb 8, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:

> While I initially had the same concerns you had and was not even that 
> personally impressed in our meeting with their promoters, I eventually 
> decided it was the way to go for one reason, membership.  Yes our trade 
> needs a good show but I did the math, If we sent out 2000 invitations to 
> the WISP-DIRECTORY list we might get about 3-400 people in our trade.  
> Of those likely 200 would be our own members and likely we would add 
> about 100 new members tops.
> 
> With this other show we stand the chance at being exposed to 1500 
> attendees, forging this new alliance would help to cement our integrated 
> interests and have them start recommending their area WISP's, that's 
> great for our membership.  Also we might get their interest in joining 
> so potentially adding hundreds of new members to WISPA. Even if they are 
> affiliate members that still adds up to more than we get at our own show 
> PLUS it would be more inviting for the other 1800 wisps to have 
> something other than just us there.
> 
> It just seems like an easier sell to WISP 's who aren't in WISPA, it 
> might push a lot of business to our members and we potentially could see 
> a much greater membership increase than if we did our own.  That versus 
> the hazard of losing money when we would rather spend it on filings and 
> true WISPA business, that's my thinking anyway.
> 
> Also for those who have stated we have made up our minds, those people 
> are just people stirring s^&t, they speak from no fact whatsoever and 
> just like to say the board just does what they want, it's crap, untrue.  
> We've been very transparent and this debate is us taking that input and 
> using it to weigh heavily in our decision.  It's a huge decision, easy 
> for members to say "hey you put on your own show" but just think about 
> the work that would put on a volunteer board versus the idea of what I 
> stated above.  Most opinions I've read have been self serving ones, 'put 
> it five miles from my house' kind of thing.  We're trying to serve the 
> entire country and those with the middle America approach are very valid 
> for that reason. We'd really enjoy hearing these kind of ideas but if we 
> sit here and argue where all day we'll never get to put it on and yet 
> another WISPA initiative gets buried in minutia, as a board this is 
> exactly what we are trying to stop.
> 
> Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show

[Matt Liotta]

Central is better. I like not losing a day for travel. I thought St. Louis was 
suggested at one point, which seems like a decent idea.

-Matt

On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> I personally like central shows because less travel time and less time zone 
> change for all America attending. As well, this even is targeted as a RURAL 
> conference, and might make sense for it to be closer to more  Rural market. 
> I'd argue there are more Rural locations in the Western States.  But 
> Orlando is one of the lowest cost venue places for shows in a major market 
> (after considering all extra costs) and Flights are always pretty cheap, 
> even from the west coast.
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck Hogg" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
> 
> 
> Tickets to Orlando for me are dirt cheap.  Always have been. From KY to 
> Orlando for the FISPA conference next month it's only $222 roundtrip.
> 
> 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 Jayson Baker
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:37 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
> 
> You're wanting to go on a family vacation?  I thought this was to be a WISP
> conference.  Like, for WISP operators.
> I, personally, have no intention of spending that much for airline tickets,
> and going to play with Mickey Mouse while I'm at a conference.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> 
>> Orlando!
>> 
>> We have the 4 Disney parks, Universal Studios, Blue Men, Sea World, 
>> I-Drive
>> area, Kissimmee area and a WHOLE lot more. I'm not aware of any zip lines
>> though. :oP
>> 
>> Dylan
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:29 AM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
>> 
>> Phoenix.  Dry and warm.
>> 
>> *OR* I live 5 minutes up the hill from a world class casino and hotel
>> complex. http://www.meskwaki.com/
>> 
>> I could host, and you could take turns climbing my towers, and riding the
>> zip lines here at Gilly Hollow.  One of them is a terror at 750 feet.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Robert West
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:18 PM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
>> 
>> I'm the same.  If Vegas, I'd pass.  Having shows in Vegas isn't about the
>> show, it's about Vegas.  The show is just the vehicle to use to get there.
>> A show in Vegas has become a cliché.
>> 
>> Bob-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Glenn Kelley
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:39 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Wispashow] Decision on WISPA Show
>> 
>> I was just in Vegas for the Ubiquity meeting
>> 
>> If you are planning to take your family anywhere - VEGAS is not the 
>> place -
>> IMHO
>> 
>> When you get off the plane and exit the airport you are handed pamphlets
>> for
>> prostitutes to come to your hotel room from $25/ hr
>> Having 3 daughters and 1 son ... I can tell you - this is hardly the place
>> I
>> would like to take my family on vacation.
>> 
>> Disney sounds better ;-)
>> 
>> Of course this is all business - - going out to Columbus, Philadelphia,
>> Indy, Chicago, Denver - yeah - much nicer...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _
>> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com
>> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
>> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>> 
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Randy Cosby wrote:
>> 
>>> Next time, drive up to Mesquite  (1.25 hours) or St. George - Great
>>> rooms / prices you can feel good about taking the family to. :)
>>> 
>>> Randy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/4/2010 9:12 AM, Eje Gustafsson wrote:
 *shudder* Reminds me of WISPCon in Vegas. The WISPCon hotel screwed up
>> my
 families reserveration. Roadeo show in town and one other large
>> conference.
 There was not a hotel room in entire Vegas, Henderson or anywhere close
 enough to drive to. Got to the hotel around 7pm to find out there was 
 no
 available room for us. We called probably 100 different places and
>> visited
 probably another 40+ places, pleading and begging for a room. We didn't
>> even
 find any rooms at the ones that only rented per week.
 Me, my w

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

On Feb 6, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> I am afraid you will have to be disapointed.  I know that American  
> Thinker has a point of view...but what SPECIFICALLY did they get wrong?
> 
It doesn't matter what was right or wrong in the article you cited because even 
if everything was right the article didn't conclude, imply, or even suggest 
that the CRA was the cause of the housing crisis. That article was squarely 
placing the blame on Fannie and Freddie.

Again, for someone who has seen plenty of research please cite it. You could 
also just withdraw your statement in light of the facts and research shared.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

That's it? Your basis against the CRA is a partisan blog post? Really? The 
guy's article doesn't even lay the blame at the CRA's feet. It is more a 
commentary on Fannie and Freddie.

I am pretty disappointed. I expected that someone who has seen plenty of 
research would have shared something that counts for research. Something like 
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136 done 
by Minneapolis Federal Reserve Economists.

or

Comptroller of the Currency:  http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm

or

FDIC Chairman Shelia Bair:  
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html

-Matt

On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Here is a nice timeline for anyone that wants to read it.  I'm done with
> this on-list:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:53 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what:
> TheFCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
> 
> I won't attempt to prove a negative. It was you who made the claim CRA
> caused the housing crisis. It is therefore incumbent on you to prove the
> claim. This is especially true since you have provided no basis for your
> claim. I have provided facts related to the CRA that have not been refuted
> by you or anyone else..
> 
> Now then, here is your chance. Back up your claims. Refute the facts I have
> provided. Provide at least a theory as to how the CRA caused the housing
> crisis.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> I've seen plenty of research Matt.  You ask for proof from me and 
>> you've provided none yourself.  If you want to provide the basis for 
>> your statements and have an argument, let's have it.  We'll probably 
>> have to do it off-list, since I'm sure everyone is getting tired of this,
> as am I.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ImageStream
>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:29 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The 
>> FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
>> 
>> What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA?
>> Is your response to facts that challenge your position to simply 
>> change the subject? I worry you formed your position without proper
> research.
>> 
>> -Matt
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>> 
>>> Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie 
>>> and Freddie.  Few of them do their own underwriting anymore.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ImageStream
>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's 
>>> roleinregulationofnet-neutrality
>>> 
>>> You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are 
>>> so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must 
>>> disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see 
>>> what percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also 
>>> publish what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The 
>>> numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up.
>>> 
>>> Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the 
>>> top
>>> 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and 
>>> Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 
>>> to
>>> 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime.
>>> 
>>> -Matt

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

I won't attempt to prove a negative. It was you who made the claim CRA caused 
the housing crisis. It is therefore incumbent on you to prove the claim. This 
is especially true since you have provided no basis for your claim. I have 
provided facts related to the CRA that have not been refuted by you or anyone 
else..

Now then, here is your chance. Back up your claims. Refute the facts I have 
provided. Provide at least a theory as to how the CRA caused the housing crisis.

-Matt

On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> I've seen plenty of research Matt.  You ask for proof from me and you've
> provided none yourself.  If you want to provide the basis for your
> statements and have an argument, let's have it.  We'll probably have to do
> it off-list, since I'm sure everyone is getting tired of this, as am I.  
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:29 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The
> FCC'sroleinregulationofnet-neutrality
> 
> What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA?
> Is your response to facts that challenge your position to simply change the
> subject? I worry you formed your position without proper research.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie and 
>> Freddie.  Few of them do their own underwriting anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ImageStream
>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's 
>> roleinregulationofnet-neutrality
>> 
>> You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are 
>> so sure of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must 
>> disclose there numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what 
>> percentage of the overall market they are. Further, banks also publish 
>> what percentage of bad mortgages they have on the books. The numbers 
>> are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up.
>> 
>> Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 
>> 25 subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and 
>> Freddie went from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 
>> 24 percent in 2006 because of the enormous private market for subprime.
>> 
>> -Matt
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with 
>>> you on-list Matt.  The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created 
>>> by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen.  There are 
>>> certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest.  I will agree 
>>> with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their 
>>> titles that bellied up to the trough.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ImageStream
>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role 
>>> inregulationofnet-neutrality
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules 
>>>> on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally
>>> qualified.
>>>> 
>>> No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a 
>>> fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad 
>>> mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages.
>>> Further

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's roleinregulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

What does your quip have to do with your earlier assertions regarding CRA? Is 
your response to facts that challenge your position to simply change the 
subject? I worry you formed your position without proper research.

-Matt
 
On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Talk to a mortgage lender...they have all become agents for Fannie and
> Freddie.  Few of them do their own underwriting anymore. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:53 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's
> roleinregulationofnet-neutrality
> 
> You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure
> of CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there
> numbers of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the
> overall market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad
> mortgages they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a
> fraction. Look it up.
> 
> Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25
> subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went
> from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006
> because of the enormous private market for subprime.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with 
>> you on-list Matt.  The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created 
>> by Fannie and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen.  There are 
>> certainly other factors, but those are the two biggest.  I will agree 
>> with you that there were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their 
>> titles that bellied up to the trough.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ImageStream
>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role 
>> inregulationofnet-neutrality
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
>> 
>>> The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules 
>>> on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally
>> qualified.
>>> 
>> No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a 
>> fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad 
>> mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. 
>> Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made 
>> even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional
> available capital.
>> 
>> There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing 
>> is a waste of time.
>> 
>> -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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Su

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

> That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained 
> capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And 
> unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its 
> customers own best interests.
> 
> If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because 
> innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation.
> 
It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's 
role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a 
monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that 
ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing its 
position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure market 
fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in the 
market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers through its 
actions.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

You keep make unsubstantiated claims. Where is your data? If you are so sure of 
CRA's effect where is the data? I mean every bank must disclose there numbers 
of CRA mortgages, so it is not hard to see what percentage of the overall 
market they are. Further, banks also publish what percentage of bad mortgages 
they have on the books. The numbers are there and CRA is a fraction. Look it up.

Remember, we are talking about subprime mortgages. in 2006, of the top 25 
subprime lenders only 1 was subject to CRA. In fact, Fannie and Freddie went 
from a high of 48 percentage of subprime loans in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 
because of the enormous private market for subprime.

-Matt

On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> I'm really not interested in getting into a big hairy argument with you
> on-list Matt.  The CRA DID have an effect, and the market created by Fannie
> and Freddie allowed the whole thing to happen.  There are certainly other
> factors, but those are the two biggest.  I will agree with you that there
> were plenty of stupid people with Cs in their titles that bellied up to the
> trough. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:13 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role
> inregulationofnet-neutrality
> 
> 
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
> 
>> The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules 
>> on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally
> qualified.
>> 
> No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction
> of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would
> have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is
> reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA
> mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a
> waste of time.
> 
> -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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on
> lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified.
> 
No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of 
the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have 
still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to 
assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would 
have been made given the additional available capital.

There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste 
of time.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

That is factual incorrect. Only minor changes were made to CRA under Clinton. 
It was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act also 
under Clinton that required Fannie and Freddie to securitize a certain 
percentage of CRA mortgages.

Again, only a fraction of the bad mortgages that caused the housing crisis were 
subject to CRA.

-Matt

On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton.  This is a
> far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that
> if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper,
> this could not have happened. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in
> regulationofnet-neutrality
> 
> The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later
> changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only
> to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety
> of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing
> Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the
> current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in
> and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
> that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like
> Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure
> all without having any interest in the underlying securities.
> 
> Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful.
> Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in
> 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage
> lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the
> housing crisis.
> 
> Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't
> afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped
> get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> That's just not accurate Tom.  The Community Reinvestment Act required 
>> lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created 
>> the market for the paper.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ImageStream
>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
>> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in 
>> regulationof net-neutrality
>> 
>> Brad,
>> 
>>> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been 
>>> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big 
>>> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.
>> 
>> You had me, until the above paragraph.  That is a crock of ShXX.
>> 
>> Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the 
>> middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it 
>> worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money?  
>> I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor 
>> cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they 
>> resort to less ethical choices.
>> What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go 
>> to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in 
>> their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check 
>> in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with 
>> gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a 
>> net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more 
>> losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an
> investment to resale.
>> 
>> And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the 
>> opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting 
>> regulations to make buying har

Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality

[Matt Liotta]

The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed 
under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only to provide 
some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of 
administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing 
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the 
current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in and 
of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that 
started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like Goldman 
to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure all without 
having any interest in the underlying securities.

Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. 
Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in 2005 
regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage lending. Thus, 
it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the housing crisis.

Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't 
afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped get 
more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons.

-Matt

On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> That's just not accurate Tom.  The Community Reinvestment Act required
> lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the
> market for the paper. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ImageStream
> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can)
> +1 574-935-8484 x106  (Int'l)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof
> net-neutrality
> 
> Brad,
> 
>> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been 
>> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big 
>> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.
> 
> You had me, until the above paragraph.  That is a crock of ShXX.
> 
> Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle
> class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth
> continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money?  I will say
> that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their
> losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical
> choices.
> What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to
> foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home,
> before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings
> instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan
> taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing
> nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do
> holding on to their home as an investment to resale.
> 
> And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the
> opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to
> make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist.
> 
> Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its
> hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30
> years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose
> houses because they loose jobs.  People loose houses because most personal
> debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to
> get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within
> their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to
> high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense
> of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they
> were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are
> some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt
> religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an
> average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed.  The borrower
> could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of
> getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission.
> 
> Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders
> approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there
> is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowner
> can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. But many are conscience business
> decissions on their investment. Why do you think Obama decided to help
> Middle class save their homes, while they let the most needy loose their
> homes? A Interest rate savings canbe just

Re: [WISPA] BGP Load Balancing Help

[Matt Liotta]

Prepending is no longer the desirable solution and should only be used if your 
upstreams don't support a better way.

The preferred way is to adjust local preference based on a route policy. You 
can simply prefer your fiber circuit if you want or adjust it on an AS basis. 
You will likely only want to consider the major carriers when doing this. For 
example, just the top ten carriers. You of course can only adjust local 
preference on your side affecting outbound traffic. To adjust local preference 
on the carrier side to affect inbound traffic you will need to have a carrier 
that supports communities. See http://onestepconsulting.net/communities/ for a 
good listing of carriers that support BGP communities.

-Matt

On Jan 17, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:

> The simplest way is to prepend the DS3 circuit.
> 
> Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
>> On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits:
>> DS3 @ 45mb/s
>> Fiber @ 100mb/s
>> 
>> The DS3 is routed more efficiently (less hops) and the fiber less efficient 
>> (more hops).  Since the BGP is routing traffic based upon number of hops to 
>> final destination only, the DS3 gets 95+% of all our internal traffic.  What 
>> can I do to shift some (or even possibly all) of the traffic to the Fiber to 
>> balance things out?  Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> `S
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Wimax gear - licensed bands btw

[Matt Liotta]

Many of those licenses had serious restrictions, which is why the auction 
reverse was so low in the first place.

-Matt

On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Charles Wu wrote:

> Speaking of which, did anyone notice the results of the latest BRS Auction 
> (#86)
> 
> Licenses went for an average of $0.03 / MHz POP
> 
> That means if 60 MHz covering 100,000 people (as defined by Census 2000 
> numbers) would have gone for $180k -- with the small business 35% credit - 
> that means a WISP would've paid $117k for that spectrum
> 
> While $117k is nothing to sneeze at, it's just worth noting that getting a 
> license is not something unreasonable or unobtainable for the "small guy"
> 
> -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/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless backhauls for Cell Carriers

[Matt Liotta]

That doesn't seem inline with any of the RFPs. Generally speaking, the  
carriers that want TDM only want it for voice and generally don't  
require more than 5 T1s for voice. Almost all of the carriers now seek  
Ethernet for for data. Almost always, the request is between 10Mbps  
and 100Mbps per tower.

Not to say that it is easy. CDMA-based carriers for example have  
stringent clocking requirements for their TDM that doesn't appear  
solvable with TDD radios. Further, the carriers that want Ethernet  
want straight layer2 between their tower and MSO. This generally means  
that the aggregate amount of backhaul exceeds radio capability the  
further away from the MSO you get. Unless you have a fiber partner or  
have fiber yourself then forget it.

-Matt

On Dec 23, 2009, at 6:06 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote:

> Don,
>
> Unless your backhaul can support TDM natively and can deliver over  
> 500Mbps
> just to them (which from what I understand the carriers are really  
> believing
> they will need), I don't think the average carrier would be  
> interested in
> collocating if that is what you were thinking of.
>
> The more immediate concern to WISP's should be carriers like
> Clearwire/Sprint gobbling up licensed spectrum for their backhauls  
> in my
> opinion.  It's a very real concern in markets where Clearwire has
> deployed... and is only going to become more of a concern going  
> forward.
> 60GHz and 80GHz are going to get a big boost though.
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
> dan...@3-db.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Robert West
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 3:57 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless backhauls for Cell Carriers
>
> Some of us have discussed doing that but it takes more than just a  
> few of
> us.  If enough were on board it would be a win/win for those involved.
>
> Bob-
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Don Renner
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 5:37 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Wireless backhauls for Cell Carriers
>
> A coordinated effort by WISPA to provide some of the necessary  
> backhauls,
> seems like a good idea.
>
>
>
> http://www.rcrwireless.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/INFRASTRUCTUR
> E/912219995/
>
>
>
> Don Renner
>
> NetsurfUSA, Inc.
>
> 8550 W. Main St.
>
> French Lick, IN 47432
>
> 812-936-4514 Office
>
> 812-936-2006 Fax
>
> 812-521-1876 Cell
>
> dren...@netsurfusa.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/

Re: [WISPA] stimulus announcements thus far

[Matt Liotta]

See the highlighted projects here...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/20091217-recovery-act-investments-broadband.pdf

-Matt

On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:20 PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 13:24, Robert West  micro.com>wrote:
>
>> So how did it get through?  :)
>>
>>
> The grants were reviewed and scored by independent volunteers (I was  
> one),
> who scored each of them using a fairly complex rubric. It covered  
> things
> like "does this meet one of the government's broadband deployment and
> economic stimulus goals," of course, but there also were a lot of  
> points for
> things like "is this budget realistic" and "will this technology  
> actually do
> what the applicant says it will." Obviously, the volunteers' scores  
> weren't
> the only factor considered by NTIA, but I'm proud to have been a bit  
> of a
> nonsense-filter. Obviously I can't talk about any of the specific
> applications I reviewed, but the five applications, totaling over 1000
> pages, had a couple doozies in there. Some folks were interested in  
> trying
> to build out broadband, others were pretty clearly just making a  
> cash grab.
> I'm hoping I was able to do a little bit to help the former and  
> quell the
> latter.
>
> 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] stimulus announcements thus far

[Matt Liotta]

A $33.5 million grant to the North Georgia Network Cooperative for a  
fiber-optic ring that will bring high-speed Internet connections to  
the northern Georgia foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. The  
project will serve an eight-county area with a population of 334,000.

A $25.4 million grant to the Biddleford Internet Corp., a partnership  
between the University of Maine and service providers, to build three  
fiber-optic rings across rural Maine. The network will pass through  
more than 100 communities with 110,000 households and will connect 10  
University of Maine campuses.

A combined grant/loan of $2.4 million to the Consolidated Electric  
Cooperative in north central Ohio to build a 166-mile fiber network  
that will be used, among other things, to connect 16 electrical  
substations to support a smart grid project.

A 4G wireless network to be built by an Alaska Native Corporation in  
southwestern Alaska, a fiber-to-the-home project in a remote corner of  
New Hampshire and computer centers for 84 libraries in Arizona.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:29 AM, rwf wrote:

> Oh?
> So you are still a WISP then?
> What is your company called?
>
Guess your filter still isn't working then. I am not a WISP and never  
have been.

If you think you know something and would like to get yourself and  
others in trouble then by all means post away.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> Matt, would you mind clarifying.When you said... "have not the  
> left the
> business", did you mean
>
I don't mind clarifying, but I am not sure what the interest is.

> 1) Have not left OneRing/RapidLink, and are involved in a non-employee
> capacity.
> or that
> 2) Have not left the Wireless Industry.
>
I have not left the wireless industry. The simplest way to describe my  
status with Rapid Link is to state that it is what was before except I  
am no longer on the board and am not an employee. Rapid Link did file  
an 8-K when I resigned from the board. Further, they have also filed  
that they entered into a merge transaction and subsequent management  
agreement. If you are interested in Rapid Link there is plenty of SEC  
filings to read.

> When you said...  "I cant talk about it", did you mean
>
> 1) You cant talk about your status at OneRing/RapidLink
> or that
> 2) You cant talk about what you are doing now..
>
I can't talk about what I am doing now.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] What the heck is Matt doing now?!? WAS: Re: Insurance

[Matt Liotta]

I can't talk about anything of the things I am involved in currently.  
Maybe in the next few months things will change. I do expect they will  
benefit the industry though.

-Matt

On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Ryan Spott wrote:

> WOW!
>
> What ARE you doing now Matt? I really enjoyed your talk at the *last*
> ISP-Con.
>
> ryan
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Chuck Profito  access.com>wrote:
>
>> Well Matt, Just what are you doing after One Ring? Where are you  
>> hanging
>> out, what does your virtual shingle say? Are you writing I Phone  
>> apps? New
>> bikini code? A new mac maybe?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:08 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
>>
>> I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring as an employee, but I have
>> not left the business. Ralph likes to speak out of turn.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
>>
>>> Matt's not in the business anymore?  News to me.  I thought he was
>>> with
>>> Rapid or Ring something or another?  Not anymore?  If true, that
>>> really is
>>> interesting...
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of rwf
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:50 AM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
>>>
>>> Matt-
>>>
>>> Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list.
>>>
>>> When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more  
>>> active.
>>>
>>> Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I
>>> understand
>>> you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still  
>>> are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I even made a filter but you keep slipping through.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>
>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest

[Matt Liotta]

I am not longer with Rapid Link/One Ring as an employee, but I have  
not left the business. Ralph likes to speak out of turn.

-Matt

On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Matt's not in the business anymore?  News to me.  I thought he was  
> with
> Rapid or Ring something or another?  Not anymore?  If true, that  
> really is
> interesting...
>
>
> Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of rwf
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:50 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest
>
> Matt-
>
> Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list.
>
> When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active.
>
> Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I  
> understand
> you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still are.
>
>
>
> I even made a filter but you keep slipping through.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Insurance thread- Matt and the rest

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:50 AM, rwf wrote:

> Matt-
>
> Please consider taking your insurance debate to another list.
>
It is not my debate. I believe the list was discussing this for at  
least 3 days before I made my first post.

> When you pop in, you just make the discussion hotter and more active.
>
I'll take that as a compliment.

> Some of us are here for wireless discussion, and Matt, although I  
> understand
> you are no longer actively in the business, the rest of us still are.
>
I suspect the majority of us are here for discussion regarding WISP  
related issues. Matt Larsen recently posted on the relevance of the  
discussion to WISPs. I can't speak to your incorrect understanding  
regarding my activity in this industry.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

>>
>> This is why in some cities in Canada, the wait for the assignment  
>> of a
>> personal physician can take up to 5 years.The government can't  
>> hire
>> enough doctors, and those that are hired have no incentive to take on
>> greater case loads.
>>
>> This is why Veterinarians in Canada have near instant access to MRI
>> machines, while people do not.Veterinary services are free  
>> market,
>> people's service are socialized.
>>
>> In every case, the government balances it's books by simply denying  
>> services
>> or delaying services to people.
>>
>> But, of course, if a government beaurocrat denies treatment, like  
>> was done
>> for my mother, the patient just dies and we all mutter "ooh, that's  
>> so sad"
>> and we go on our way, secure in the fact that it wasn't our failure  
>> to pull
>> out our wallets and give to help the needy, but if someone dies  
>> because they
>> themselves could not afford to pay for it (as opposed to the agency  
>> budget
>> not having the money), we get to get all righteous and get on our  
>> soapbox
>> and yell rants and raves and excoriate those selfish bastards who are
>> refusing to give Congress a few more trillion dollars a year to  
>> spend in
>> ways to benefit themselves politically.
>>
>> I mean, it's so easy, once the government has to decide, not you  
>> having to
>> decide whether you have to sacrifice for charity, your conscience  
>> and self
>> righteousness can remain fully intact - it won't be YOUR fault they  
>> died
>> like my mother did, because Medicare refused treatment, right? 
>> After all,
>> Medicare denies treatment to "covered" patients MORE than any other  
>> insurer,
>> public or private, in some cases by more than 5 times as many  
>> denials as
>> private insurance.Yet, Medicare has the largest percentage of  
>> fraudulent
>> payments of any insurer, BY FAR.But, hey, if it's the  
>> government's
>> responsibility, we're morally relieved of any personal  
>> responsibility for
>> those who suffer for a lack, right?
>>
>> Or, are you going to tell us that government can buy unlimited  
>> health care
>> for everyone?
>>
>> --
>> From: "Matt Liotta" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:59 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>
>>
>>> And I guess because you know someone from Canada/Britain/France/ 
>>> Spain/
>>> etc that swears the healthcare is worse then they make it out to be
>>> and that the US is where everyone with money goes then it must be
>>> true. Let's all just ignore study after study that shows every  
>>> single
>>> first world country has it better than the US. Sure, I'll believe  
>>> Cuba
>>> is hiding the real story. What about the other 30+ countries that  
>>> have
>>> better healthcare at a lower GDP cost? Are they lying too?
>>>
>>> -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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 9, 2009, at 12:20 AM, MDK wrote:

> Every country with a government run medical system   Denies  
> routine
> medical care, extraordinary medical care, or expensive medical care  
> on a
> routine basis.   This is why babies delivered by the NHS hospitals in
> Britain are less than 90% born in a hospital room or delivery  
> room. The
> rest are born in hallways, waiting rooms, streets, cabs, or ambulances
> because there are no available rooms.And, this number hasn't  
> changed
> significantly in years and will not change, because the government  
> simply
> hasn't enough money to expand facilities.
>
What is your point? Every private insurance company in the US denies  
routine medical care, extraordinary medical care, or expensive medical  
care on a routine basis.

> This is why in some cities in Canada, the wait for the assignment of a
> personal physician can take up to 5 years.The government can't  
> hire
> enough doctors, and those that are hired have no incentive to take on
> greater case loads.
>
That would likely happen here as well if the entire population had  
access to healthcare. What isn't clear from your statement is that  
while true it is believed to only affect 5% of the Canadian  
population. Whereas around at least 15% of americans are in the same  
boat since they don't have insurance.

> This is why Veterinarians in Canada have near instant access to MRI
> machines, while people do not.Veterinary services are free market,
> people's service are socialized.
>
I think your point is that if you pay for the MRI you can get it  
immediately. This is true for people in Canada as well.

> In every case, the government balances it's books by simply denying  
> services
> or delaying services to people.
>
Sounds like our private insurance companies only their books have to  
also balance the profit they need to deliver to their shareholders.

> I mean, it's so easy, once the government has to decide, not you  
> having to
> decide whether you have to sacrifice for charity, your conscience  
> and self
> righteousness can remain fully intact - it won't be YOUR fault they  
> died
> like my mother did, because Medicare refused treatment, right? 
> After all,
> Medicare denies treatment to "covered" patients MORE than any other  
> insurer,
> public or private, in some cases by more than 5 times as many  
> denials as
> private insurance.Yet, Medicare has the largest percentage of  
> fraudulent
> payments of any insurer, BY FAR.But, hey, if it's the government's
> responsibility, we're morally relieved of any personal  
> responsibility for
> those who suffer for a lack, right?
>
Cite your sources.

> Or, are you going to tell us that government can buy unlimited  
> health care
> for everyone?
>
No one thinks they can.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, MDK wrote:

> I'm sure you're a nice guy...
>
> But you're trying to convince a lot of people who know better by  
> long years
> of experience, that life would be beautiful and all will be fine, if  
> we just
> give Congress a few more trillion dollars a year of our hard earned  
> money.
>
I am pretty sure that wasn't his position.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:32 PM, MDK wrote:

> As I stated before...   Medicare reimburses such low amounts, that  
> ever
> doctor, hospital, clinic, lab, etc, that accepts it does so at a  
> loss.   Not
> just "no profit" but at a loss.Not only that, but Medicare has the
> highest level of financial fraud, period.   It's very efficient...  
> at giving
> away money for nothing, and yet, at the same time,  has created the  
> single
> largest "pick the pocket of someone else" program to exist.
>
Cite your sources.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

I can't reread what you said. I can however reread what you wrote. I  
suggest you do the same. You state that you weren't commenting on the  
whole healthcare debate. Yet you were responding to a thread that was  
specifically a healthcare debate. Thus, it is reasonable to take your  
comments in the context of the overall debate. Further, I understand  
your comment was limited to your personal experience with Cuba. As I  
stated though, such anecdotes may be true, but are meaningless in the  
larger debate. While you may have meant only to share your personal  
experience with Cuba you ended up presenting a standard straw-man  
argument that has been used throughout the debate. If you don't want  
people to interpret your comments in the larger context of the debate  
you are participating in then I suggest stating that or simply don't  
comment.

Now with specific regard to Cuba... Here you have a nation that is  
estimated to be the 70th largest economy in the world and ranked  
directly behind the largest economy in world in terms of healthcare.  
Maybe the rankings are flawed. Maybe Cuba lies about their statistics.  
Maybe they provide good healthcare to some and deny it to others. I  
don't really care since I have no desire to emulate our healthcare  
after Cuba. But, it is telling that such a poor country can do so well  
and a rich country like ours can do so poor.

-Matt

On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:08 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:

> Matt,
>
>   Please reread what I said. I wasn't commenting on the whole  
> healthcare debate. I was talking about Cuba. CUBA CUBA CUBA. Do you  
> get it now? Just CUBA. Reread the original post and get off your  
> high horse. Have you noticed everyone else stopped replying to you.
>
>   Everyone else, sorry, that's my last post on this topic no matter  
> what Matt says next.
>
> Greg
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba
>>> because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I speak
>>> Spanish. I know Cubans and I know a lot of people who have been to
>>> Cuba. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not refuting all those
>>> other countries statistics. I thought you wanted debate of the
>>> facts. Or do you just want us to sit at your feet and listen?
>>>
>> I do want to debate the facts, but you are responding with anecdotes.
>> This is a standard straw-man used throughout the healthcare debate. I
>> know person X from country Y that says this or had such and such
>> happen to them. Such a statement can be true, but it is meaningless  
>> in
>> the context of the debate. Such a situation needs to be statistically
>> significant to matter. All systems have their flaws as no one  
>> believes
>> a perfect system exists.
>>
>> -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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:56 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:

> Matt,
>
>   Chill, you're taking a really harsh tone. I'm talking about Cuba  
> because I know about that. I have many Latino friends. I speak  
> Spanish. I know Cubans and I know a lot of people who have been to  
> Cuba. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not refuting all those  
> other countries statistics. I thought you wanted debate of the  
> facts. Or do you just want us to sit at your feet and listen?
>
I do want to debate the facts, but you are responding with anecdotes.  
This is a standard straw-man used throughout the healthcare debate. I  
know person X from country Y that says this or had such and such  
happen to them. Such a statement can be true, but it is meaningless in  
the context of the debate. Such a situation needs to be statistically  
significant to matter. All systems have their flaws as no one believes  
a perfect system exists.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

And I guess because you know someone from Canada/Britain/France/Spain/ 
etc that swears the healthcare is worse then they make it out to be  
and that the US is where everyone with money goes then it must be  
true. Let's all just ignore study after study that shows every single  
first world country has it better than the US. Sure, I'll believe Cuba  
is hiding the real story. What about the other 30+ countries that have  
better healthcare at a lower GDP cost? Are they lying too?

-Matt

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:47 PM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry guys, I just have to jump in on the Cuban health care thing. I  
> live in Venezuela and we have LOTS of Cuban doctors. I know some  
> personally. I know Venezuelans who have studied in Cuba. It's  
> nothing like they (the Cuban govt) say it is. The numbers are good  
> because it's a closed totalitarian system where one doesn't dare  
> report what is unpopular. Come on guys, you know enough about Cuba.  
> People are clinging to inner tubes and hunks of wood to get away.  
> When I was in the merchant marine we picked up two boat loads of  
> them. Do you guys remember when Russia was still the USSR and on  
> "Radio Moscow" they had the "farm report" segment telling about the  
> great excesses of food produced mean while our merchant marine was  
> busying bringing loads of give-away grain to the USSR. Please don'e  
> buy what their state-run media is saying. Anyone see Fahrenheit 911?  
> Remember when Michael Moore arrived at the neighborhood "hospital"  
> but then they (and their cameras) were quickly directed to
> the other hospital? Wonder why? Because the neighborhood one (and  
> the whole healthcare system for the people) would have been a  
> laughing stock. Instead they were directed to the premier 5 star  
> hospital that is probably for party officials and military higher ups.
>
> Greg
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Robert West wrote:
>
>> Actually, the United States ranks number 37 in the world for the best
>> doctors and health care system.  Most Americans are under the  
>> impression
>> that we are number one in so many things but sadly we are way less  
>> than
>> number one in most everything.  The best doctors and healthcare  
>> system?
>> France and Italy.  Cuba actually has a very impressive health  
>> system and
>> many countries send their doctors there for training.  Again, sad  
>> but true.
>> Hiding ones head in the sand and ignoring what goes on outside our  
>> borders
>> is what we've been doing.  I know it's not competition, per se, but  
>> it
>> should at least be used as a measuring tool.  I'm not under any  
>> delusion
>> that we or myself are best in anything.  Keeps me moving.
>>
>> Bob-
>>
>> Is this the "Insurance List"?This is why politics should be a  
>> No-No.
>> It's 99% of the list now.
>>
>> Bob-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Brad Belton
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:48 PM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>
>> No kidding.  No profits no medical advancements.  Where do people  
>> go when
>> they seek the best doctors and health system in the world?  America.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:15 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>
>> No, not that simple...
>>
>> On 12/7/09, Robert West  wrote:
>>> Exactly.  We are the one and only industrialized country (with  
>>> whatever
>>> industry we might have left) who puts "profit" in healthcare.  As  
>>> you
>>> stated, their goal is to NOT pay and they can and do come up with  
>>> anything
>>> they can find to do that.
>>>
>>> Profit has no place in healthcare.  Single payer is the only thing  
>>> I see
>>> working.  As far as increased taxes to pay for it, we already are  
>>> paying
>> for
>>> it and getting zero bang for our buck.  As George from the great  
>>> white
>> north
>>> said, healthcare shows up nowhere in his budget.  They just pay  
>>> extra in
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>> Medicare for all.  End of the controversy.  Simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom Sharples
>>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:24 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>>
>>> One of the basic probems IMO is that the whole idea of medical  
>>> insurance,
>> as
>>>
>>> currentlky implemented, is fundamentally flawed. Consider selling  
>>> ISP
>>> services under the model of "broadband insurance." Under that  
>>> model, your
>>> customer would pay you a certain amount per month in case he needs
>>> broadband, and you would do your best to find reasons to deny him  
>>> access.
>> Or
>>>
>

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> Exactly.  Bernie Madoff went to jail because of his Ponzi scheme,  
> why didn't
> FDR for social security?  Well, other than the obvious of him dieing.
>
Maybe you don't realize that Madoff fraudulently mislead investors  
whereas social security is a government mandate. Of course, this has  
been refuted by many others; see...

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ponzi.htm

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2009/07/21/is-social-security-a-giant-ponzi-scheme.aspx

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm

I challenge you to take a supportable position that can actually move  
the healthcare debate forward. Again, I believe it is people like you  
that keep legitimate debate from occurring. Shame on you.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:

> You can't have it both ways.
>
> The survey (which is flawed, but it was brought up) says that Cuba
> rates below the US.  Did you read how the numbers were come up
> with?
>
I guess I don't understand how I am expecting it both ways. You asked  
why Cuba is ranked lower and I answered.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:

> If Cuba is so good, why do they rank below the US?
>
Mostly likely because they are such a poor country and can't spend  
much money on healthcare.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

Those other countries that have better health outcomes and a longer  
life expectancy have taken profit out of healthcare. Further, their  
doctors are smart and spent a lot of time and money going to medical  
as well. Most did it for the same reasons as doctors here. And many  
get paid well like you would expect a doctor to. Of course, they don't  
have to deal with insurance companies or have huge staffs of people  
try to collect on fees.

-Matt

On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:30 PM, ccrum wrote:

> Take the profit out of health care and the quality will go with it.
> Would you do your job for what the gov will pay? Maybe you haven't
> noticed, but it takes a smart person and a whole lot of hard work to  
> get
> into and get through medical school in the US. If there is no  
> incentive
> above "helping my fellow man," then you will see a mass exodus of the
> best people in the field. I know several doctors (specialists too) who
> are already looking at plan B in case of a government takeover of the
> health care sytem.
>
> Cameron
>
> Robert West wrote:
>> Exactly.  We are the one and only industrialized country (with  
>> whatever
>> industry we might have left) who puts "profit" in healthcare.  As you
>> stated, their goal is to NOT pay and they can and do come up with  
>> anything
>> they can find to do that.
>>
>> Profit has no place in healthcare.  Single payer is the only thing  
>> I see
>> working.  As far as increased taxes to pay for it, we already are  
>> paying for
>> it and getting zero bang for our buck.  As George from the great  
>> white north
>> said, healthcare shows up nowhere in his budget.  They just pay  
>> extra in
>> taxes.
>>
>> Medicare for all.  End of the controversy.  Simple.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Tom Sharples
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:24 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>
>> One of the basic probems IMO is that the whole idea of medical  
>> insurance, as
>>
>> currentlky implemented, is fundamentally flawed. Consider selling ISP
>> services under the model of "broadband insurance." Under that  
>> model, your
>> customer would pay you a certain amount per month in case he needs
>> broadband, and you would do your best to find reasons to deny him  
>> access. Or
>>
>> how about "housing insurance" instead of monthly rent. You pay the  
>> landlord
>> a certain amount every month in case you need shelter and he  
>> oversubscribes
>> a number of his units and hires guards to keep people out on various
>> pretexts. Sound completely ridiculous, yet unless you're in an HMO  
>> like
>> Kaiser that's the system we have now.
>>
>> What we need is universal (private or public) access to medical care,
>> healthy lifestyle incentives, and the elimination of stupid laws  
>> that only
>> serve to increase the costs of medical care and prescription drugs  
>> to US
>> consumers, restrict free-market access across state and international
>> lines,create incentives toward excess consumption and CYA medical  
>> pratices,
>> and only serve to increase the costs of medical care and  
>> prescription drugs
>> to US consumers.
>>
>> Tom S.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "RickG" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance
>>
>>
>>
>>> Someone posted earlier that the health insurance industry is not  
>>> truly run
>>> in a "free market". It's "failure" is exactly due to this. Even  
>>> after all
>>> the government rules and regulations, who in the USA does not have
>>> "access"
>>> to health care?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM, David E. Smith  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 16:42, MDK  wrote:


> The free market really does work.   We use it daily in our  
> business...
> Now
>
 imagine if we used it for health care, too.We know how to do  
 that,
 don't

> we?
>
 There is a fundamental difference between broadband Internet and  
 basic
 medical care, and the fact that tens of millions of Americans  
 have better
 access to the former than the latter shows that in this instance  
 the free
 market has failed miserably.

 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 Yo

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Michael Baird wrote:

> The post office is bankrupt, not self supporting.
> http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/18/the-next-bankruptcy-the-u-s-postal-service/
>
Your own reference doesn't state the post office is bankrupt nor does  
it refute that the post office is self supporting. It suggests that  
the future is not bright for the post office and references some of  
the things the postmaster general is discussing to cut costs. I  
personally like the idea of cutting Saturday delivery.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Andy Trimmell wrote:

> Kinda like when I was home schooled as a kid and my parents had to pay
> school taxes for public school? Only makes sense that we'd again pay
> twice for another public option.
>
> Good analogy.
>
I don't think your parents had to pay twice. They could have sent you  
to public school. This why the analogy breaks down. A more reasonable  
analogy would be an existing public service that is augmented or  
replaced with a private one for personal reasons. Maybe owning a car  
when public transit is available. Or living in a gated community with  
security when there is a police force. Or having a bottled water  
service in addition to your regular water service. Or using a private  
toll bridge to shorten a trip as compared with using the public road.  
These are all examples of the private option being used because of  
personal circumstances even though a public option exists.

I personally would like to see something more like the post office.  
This is a public organization that is self-supported. Yet UPS and  
FedEx are viable companies offering a private choice. I like how  
online retailers have learned to mix and match the post office with  
UPS and FedEx to minimize their shipping costs and yet still get their  
products to consumers effectively.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

>> From the NY Times:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1
>
The article certainly shares some facts and anecdotes regarding the  
2003 Texas tort reform. However, it doesn't point to any research that  
ties cause and effect. What I find interesting about the Texas case is  
that Texas has one of the best and most thorough databases regarding  
insurance claims. The idea behind the 2003 tort reform was to stop the  
excess malpractice problems. However, we now know there wasn't  
actually a problem. See 
http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/clcjm/stability_release.pdf 
, which references a study released in 2005 that found, "Recent spikes  
in medical malpractice premiums in Texas were not caused by rising  
payouts on claims or rising jury verdicts." The study looked at data  
between 1988 and 2002 i.e. before the 2003 tort reform. Additionally,  
the proponents of tort reform claim it will lower insurance costs. Yet  
in Texas insurance premiums rose the 3rd fastest nationally.

Unfortunately, tort reform is a red herring when it comes to  
healthcare costs. The estimates right now are that jury awards for  
malpractice cost about $3.6 billion annually, while we spend $2.3  
trillion annually. That would mean jury awards count for .001% of our  
healthcare costs. Some would argue there is more than jury awards to  
malpractice cost. To that end, a 2004 report by the Congressional  
Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S.  
health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb  
health-care expenses, it concluded.

Then there is insurance giant WellPoint that released its own report  
detailing what it thought was the source of increased costs, which  
doesn't conclude malpractice is a major issue. See 
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS137490+27-May-2009+PRN20090527 
.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Agreed.  Tort reform will help save healthcare costs and enable more  
> doctors
> to practice their trade.  My doctor just shut down his practice of  
> 20-30
> years and let his entire staff go due to the cost of business  
> growing out of
> control.
>
Go get his income statement and you will find where the costs where.  
It wasn't malpractice that drove him out of business.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Sure sign of a person losing his argument...personal attacks.
>
I would normally agree with you. Except in this case I am not relying  
on a personal attack to refute his point. However, I am fed up with  
uninformed people slowing down debate and I don't mind calling them  
out on it. Time is on my side as healthcare costs keep going up and a  
smaller percentage of people have insurance each year. The people  
slowing down debate are going to be handed something they hate. At  
least if they stuck to the facts and worked toward a solution there  
would be some hope of getting a truly American system as opposed a  
rehashed European system.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:00 AM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:

> But look at their healthcare at #144
>
> http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
>
What does that have to do with the point I was refuting?

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Not sure where you got this info Matt.  I've seen just the  
> opposite.  In
> Mississippi they had lost most of the OB/GYN docs.  They are now  
> getting
> what they need since they enacted tort reform.
>
You've seen or read the studies? Because the studies are very clear on  
this. Remember, exceptions don't prove the rule.

> The cost of malpractice, jury awards, and defensive medicine are  
> massive.
>
Indeed, but no better viable system of checks and balances in  
healthcare has yet to emerge.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> What's great about the commercial insurers, is that if you're not  
> happy with
> how one company is ran, you can move to another.  Just like if someone
> doesn't like Comcast's customer service or Verizon's service  
> options, they
> can choose me for service.  Just think if Qwest was everyone's sole  
> Internet
> provider.  There are no other commercial based first world countries  
> I can
> move to (rescinding my US citizenship) to free myself of the burden of
> socialist healthcare.
>
Actually, that is not true. In many markets there is no choice.  
Further, since most people depend on their employer for insurance they  
can't change healthcare providers without changing jobs. And, even if  
they wanted to change healthcare providers they may not be able to  
because of a preexisting condition e.g. pregnancy.

You are what is wrong with the healthcare debate. Get informed or get  
out.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Mike wrote:

> The first is to allow people to die with dignity.  I saw something on
> 60 minutes recently where a trauma doctor was talking about how 60%
> of people spend the last few days of their lives in intensive care at
> great expense while compassionate medical personnel pull out all
> stops to prolong their lives.  When is enough, enough?  I have a
> living will and will come back to haunt anyone not respecting my  
> wishes.
>
Having watched two relatives die over the course of days being starved  
to death as part of a "humane" end of life treatment I understand very  
well that our current system needs euthanasia reform. The fact that it  
would save money is even better, but it is not about the money.

> The second is a big one, tort reform.  I don't know exactly how we
> can get a handle on that one, but the frivolous lawsuits are adding
> an immense burden to health care costs.  OBGYN doctors are leaving
> the field because they can't afford malpractice insurance.  Those who
> stay are charging ever greater fees in order to cover their
> premiums.  And that is only one branch of medicine.  Many others
> suffer from the same dynamics.
>
You've got that one wrong. Studies have shown that in states where  
tort reform was enacted there was no effect on the number of doctors  
or the cost of healthcare. Specifically to your point, those states  
with tort reform did NOT see a reduction in malpractice insurance  
premiums.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> Our profit is what drives the medical research and inspiration to make
> something better.
>
Actually, most medical R&D is funded by the government. Further, even  
many of the corporate R&D programs depend on government funding.

> The greatest profit based economy?  The USA, and we're doing quite  
> well.
> The greatest government based economy?  We haven't seen them in 18  
> years.
>
You may want to check your facts. Unfortunately, China is looking much  
better financially than we are.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Insurance....

[Matt Liotta]

History should be a guide; not a box. Our country has proven that our  
system of government and its attitude towards the free market is  
unmatched by any other system of government past or present. However,  
multinational corporations are something new that our system is having  
a hard time with. This is because a perfect capitalist is a monopolist  
and monopolies destroy innovation, which is the heart of our country's  
success.

Healthcare is tough because it allows for so many straw-man arguments  
that real debate is lost in the noise. Further, healthcare is now a  
global concern, so the actions of other nations impact our own. What I  
would like to see is a real debate that leads to a solution.  
Businesses simply can't sustain the increasing cost of healthcare and  
neither can their employees.

Right now we have the scariest of all worlds whether you are a liberal  
or a conservative. People without healthcare aren't healthy and cost  
us all too much. Doctors have to employ more people to deal with  
insurance company bureaucracy than to actually provide healthcare.  
Further, as a percentage of GDP we spend the most and get the least.

-Matt

On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:29 AM, os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:

> Owen,
>
>   I think maybe what you're missing is the historical perspective.  
> Our history is people left Europe which was mostly feudal with kings  
> and rulers dictating the details of people's lives and these people  
> came here to be free. Collaboration is needed so the whole can  
> exceed what the mere individual is capable of but as is evident in  
> the constitution the founding fathers were trying to have just  
> enough, just the bare minimum of government needed to all that to  
> happen. That's why according to the constitution the federal  
> government's roll is only supposed to involve national security and  
> interstate commerce.
>
>   At one point in time the US government felt it was necessary in  
> order to provide good telephone communications to force there to be  
> only one national telephone company (the streets were getting  
> cluttered with wires and clearly none of the little companies would  
> ever cover the entire nation). Some years later the government felt  
> it was necessary to break up that telecommunications company (the  
> divestiture) and allow competition in those markets. Both decisions  
> were right at the time.
>
>   Certain aspects of socialism have merit and if you exclude a few  
> totalitarian regimes no socialist country is purely socialist  
> without any private property or capitalism, and all mainly  
> capitalist countries have some social programs.
>
>   So it comes down to how much is right. Most people feel we need  
> Medicare, VA hospitals and other things you mention below (we're a  
> compassionate people though the majority would say those things need  
> fixing) but it's a big leap from a medical system which takes care  
> of the elderly and honored veterans to a healthcare system for  
> everyone. And from what I've heard (I watch Glen Beck and Jon  
> Stewart so I know I'm getting both sides) there's some language in  
> the government's proposals which clearly makes their thing an  
> "option". It sounds more like "an offer you can't refuse" when they  
> say you can only keep your current private insurance if you don't  
> make any changes or else you default to the government system. What  
> the majority of Americans want is freedom even if it's dangerous  
> (think 2nd amendment).
>
> Greg
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Owen Harrell wrote:
>
>>  I keep reading what everyone is saying about government and
>> insurance, but I don't really believe you. Most of you say that you  
>> are
>> against the government getting involved in health care, that it is a
>> Socialist idea. What I haven't heard is any of you saying you  
>> wanted to stop
>> Medicare or Social Security or shut down the VA hospitals. Why not?  
>> These
>> are Socialist programs. These are Government run programs with no  
>> choice to
>> purchase it from the private market. Why haven't you said to stop  
>> those
>> programs? You say you believe in the Free Market, but I do not see  
>> you
>> asking to stop regulating electricity, or natural gas. Only if we  
>> let these
>> companies truly charge whatever they wanted to would it be a free  
>> market.
>> Most of you claim to be Christians, but you do not really believe  
>> what you
>> preach. A true Christian always wants to help those that are less  
>> fortunate
>> than yourself. Well I believe that includes health care. Or does it  
>> mean you
>> can pick and choose who should be helped and who shouldn't. Yes, I  
>> have had
>> insurance almost my whole life. Some was paid for by my employer,  
>> some has
>> been paid for by myself. What I have seen is premiums go up every  
>> year.
>> However, the health of this nation ranks in the 30's among other  
>> nations. We
>> live

Re: [WISPA] OSPF Calculations

[Matt Liotta]

show ip route

-Matt

On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Scott Reed wrote:

> Does the lack of response mean there is no tool?
> Is this something WISPS would use if it were available?
>
> Scott Reed wrote:
>>> Does anyone have a tool you use to help determine OSPF link costs  
>>> and
>>> track what you have set for OSPF costs?
>>> What I would really like is something I can enter the link costs for
>>> all the paths and then it will show the costs and routes between 2
>>> selected nodes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.79/2522 - Release Date:  
>> 11/23/09 19:45:00
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x4000
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Which WiMAX Are You?

[Matt Liotta]

Too many lists just fragment the conversation. Many including myself  
just don't feel like joining a bunch of lists. Ultimately, if WISPA is  
trying to move the value of the lists to just members then they should  
just make the existing list, members only and be done with.

-Matt

On Sep 12, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

> Ah. I never quite remember that:
>
> the WISP list is for WISPA members only, while
>
> the WISPA list is for any WISP.
>
> Definitely clever naming ;-).   
>
> Still, I wish they'd change that since us not-so-clever people would
> expect the reverse!
>
> Anyway, I generally support moving some of this onto internal lists,
> but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to divide things up so
> finely that we have frequency-labelled lists.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Sep 12, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>> A members-only list, so if people don't mind to keep it going on this
>> list instead of the closed one...
>>
>>
>> Rubens
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Josh Luthman
>>  wrote:
>>> Heads up thread - Jack made a new list for 3.650 topics  
>>> specifically.
>>>
>>> On 9/12/09, Chuck Bartosch  wrote:
 Tom,

 802.16d implementations can and do support diversity antennas on  
 the
 AUs.

 I don't know the definitive answer to the rest of the question.
 But I
 do know that:

 (1) Clients in 802.16e can and do support diversity

 (2) The clients are supposed to be interoperable

 (3) I know of no clients that support diversity in 802.16d

 So, speculatively, the point might that 802.16e clients support
 diversity and interoperate.

 You pick up at least a few db with client diversity antennas-though
 not nearly enough to make up for the lower power regime you have to
 operate in.

 Chuck



 On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Always great to see your list posts filled with good info.
> Responses
> inline...
>
>> The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a
>> high
>> cost
>> and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that
>> diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self-
>> install.
>
> Can you clarify? Are you saying D Spec does not support Diversity?
> Or that most D vendors focusing on price chose not to include
> implementation
> of it?
>
> Even most Wifi chipsets supports diversity.
>
> My understanding was D supported diversity, because the early Pre-
> Wimax
> Aperto supported all types of Diversity.
> Please clarify.
>
> I'd like to add... I'd like to see more FIXED products support
> Diversity at
> the AP.
> Trials have shown that Polarity diversity yielded much better
> results than
> Spacial diversity for NLOS. BUT, that data does not consider
> spectrum
> availabilty and congestion.
> Many Metro deployments can't afford to waste a polarity, with
> limited
> spectrum and lots of noise, and forced to abandon the idea of
> Polarity
> diversity.
> Spacial Diversity at teh AP is an enhancement that can be used
> without any
> trade-off other than Colo fees if can't avoid paying colo per
> antenna.
> Actually in newer MIMO designs Spacial Diversity on its own showed
> signficant improvements in range.
> This could becaome even more important in 3.65 with few channels.
>
>> Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5  
>> GHz
>> doing
>> self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service
>> (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's  
>> service.
>> D is
>> better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for
>> public
>> safety video type networks and definitely for voice-centric  
>> users.
>> D is
>> better for enterprise, where many users sit behind the CPE. E is
>> better
>> for roaming individual users with modest expectations.
>
> I'd agree. And I'd agree "D" is most appropriate for most WISPs.
>
> I think the biggest factor in deciding though isn't technology
> specs?
> People want to pick the technology with the longest life span.
> Many WISPs might prefer D, but are afraid D might be discontinued
> sooner,
> since the big dollar might have followed E.
> Just like is happening right now.
> I think the number one factor that will lead WISPs to pick D is
> acknowledgement that Vendors understand and see the long term
> potential and
> MArket for D, so we can be confident about our vendors.
> So far, I think the primary vendors have done a good job showing
> their
> supprot for D.
>
> The other number 1 barrier to WiMax is price, so once again many
> have chosen
> D for price reasons.

Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?

[Matt Liotta]

I didn't state E was not supportable. I stated mobile was not supportable
because of the current rules, which severally limit the power of mobile
devices. Couple that with the poor physics of 3650 and the limited power
available at the base stations to compensate; mobile will never work.
-Matt

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tim Sylvester wrote:

> What part of the 3650 rules make E "not supportable"?
>
> Tim
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:47 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
> >
> > E is only really useful for mobile and mobile is not supportable with
> > the
> > current 3650 rules.
> > -Matt
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Sylvester
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to see more vendors support 802.16e at 3.65GHz. Also I
> > would
> > > like to see 802.16e at 3.65GHz supported in a netbook and a USB
> > dongle.
> > > Does
> > > anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz?
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
> > boun...@wispa.org] On
> > > > Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM
> > > > To: WISPA General List
> > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
> > > >
> > > > I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World next week.
> > > > Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed deployment, but if
> > you
> > > > nailed
> > > > me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too many things for
> > too
> > > > many
> > > > people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far more useful for
> > fixed
> > > > deployments.
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary
> > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum
> > in
> > > > a
> > > > > manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX
> > > > > standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it
> > put
> > > > > out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions
> > for
> > > > > fixed, nomadic,
> > > > > portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two versions of
> > WiMAX
> > > > > address the
> > > > > demand for these different types of access:
> > > > > * 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of
> > the
> > > > > IEEE 802.16
> > > > > standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency
> > Division
> > > > > Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in Line
> > of
> > > > > Sight
> > > > > (LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments.
> > > > > * 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels,
> > this
> > > > > version is
> > > > > based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for handoffs
> > and
> > > > > roaming."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is
> > going to
> > > > > asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week.
> > The
> > > > fact
> > > > > is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was
> > designed
> > > > to
> > > > > do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband.
> > This
> > > > > version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile
> > > > version
> > > > > for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz
> > and
> > > > > 35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric
> > or
> > > > even
> > > > > higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for
> > networks
> > > > > doing high capa

Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?

[Matt Liotta]

E is only really useful for mobile and mobile is not supportable with the
current 3650 rules.
-Matt

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Sylvester wrote:

> I would like to see more vendors support 802.16e at 3.65GHz. Also I would
> like to see 802.16e at 3.65GHz supported in a netbook and a USB dongle.
> Does
> anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz?
>
> Tim
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?
> >
> > I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World next week.
> > Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed deployment, but if you
> > nailed
> > me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too many things for too
> > many
> > people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far more useful for fixed
> > deployments.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now is
> > the
> > > time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum in
> > a
> > > manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX
> > > standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it put
> > > out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila:
> > >
> > > "The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions for
> > > fixed, nomadic,
> > > portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two versions of WiMAX
> > > address the
> > > demand for these different types of access:
> > > * 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of the
> > > IEEE 802.16
> > > standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency Division
> > > Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in Line of
> > > Sight
> > > (LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments.
> > > * 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels, this
> > > version is
> > > based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for handoffs and
> > > roaming."
> > >
> > > It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is going to
> > > asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week. The
> > fact
> > > is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was designed
> > to
> > > do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband. This
> > > version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile
> > version
> > > for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz and
> > > 35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric or
> > even
> > > higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for networks
> > > doing high capacity upstream like video surveillance.
> > >
> > > For too long, vendors that now only do the mobile standard have been
> > > trying to squeeze the round peg of the mobile standard into the
> > square
> > > hole of fixed networks. This has been confusing many, and leading
> > some
> > > to overpay for their networks. Why pay for millions in R&D for
> > features
> > > that you can never use, especially in a 3.65 GHz network where mobile
> > > can't happen? We have seen "consultants" spec'ing in E for 3.65 GHz,
> > > thinking they will get interoperability and even PC cards for their
> > > networks. They also think they can get self-install -- something this
> > > community knows is not possible in 3.65 GHz due to the power
> > > restrictions placed on indoor modems. Operators and other would-be
> > WiMAX
> > > deployers are being hoodwinked.
> > >
> > > The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high
> > cost
> > > and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that
> > > diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self-
> > install.
> > >
> > > Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz
> > doing
> > > self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service
> > > (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D
> > is
> > > better and cheaper 

Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You?

[Matt Liotta]

I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World next week.
Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed deployment, but if you nailed
me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too many things for too many
people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far more useful for fixed
deployments.

-Matt

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary  wrote:

> The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now is the
> time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum in a
> manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX
> standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it put
> out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila:
>
> "The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions for
> fixed, nomadic,
> portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two versions of WiMAX
> address the
> demand for these different types of access:
> * 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of the
> IEEE 802.16
> standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency Division
> Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in Line of
> Sight
> (LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments.
> * 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels, this
> version is
> based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for handoffs and
> roaming."
>
> It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is going to
> asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week. The fact
> is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was designed to
> do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband. This
> version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile version
> for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz and
> 35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric or even
> higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for networks
> doing high capacity upstream like video surveillance.
>
> For too long, vendors that now only do the mobile standard have been
> trying to squeeze the round peg of the mobile standard into the square
> hole of fixed networks. This has been confusing many, and leading some
> to overpay for their networks. Why pay for millions in R&D for features
> that you can never use, especially in a 3.65 GHz network where mobile
> can't happen? We have seen "consultants" spec'ing in E for 3.65 GHz,
> thinking they will get interoperability and even PC cards for their
> networks. They also think they can get self-install -- something this
> community knows is not possible in 3.65 GHz due to the power
> restrictions placed on indoor modems. Operators and other would-be WiMAX
> deployers are being hoodwinked.
>
> The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high cost
> and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that
> diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self-install.
>
> Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz doing
> self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service
> (especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D is
> better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for public
> safety video type networks and definitely for voice-centric users. D is
> better for enterprise, where many users sit behind the CPE. E is better
> for roaming individual users with modest expectations.
>
> We'd like to hear your opinions, and if you like to discuss this with us
> while at 4G World, please drop me a note.
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick Leary
> Aperto Networks
>
>
> Patrick Leary
> Aperto Networks
> 813.426.4230 mobile
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Grant

[Matt Liotta]

My two cents is that BIP/BTOP is going to be great for vendors and  
terrible for WISPs. The vendors don't care who gets awarded the money  
as long as they sell gear.

-Matt

On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Blake Bowers wrote:

> Just an observation.
>
> Lots of companies are asking for letters of support from
> public safety agencies.  As Chief of my Fire Department, I have
> gotten a number of requests in the past week.
>
> The really interesting ones are the ones that
>
> A.  Show no benefit to public safety other than they say
> broadband will be more available and cheaper.
>
> b.  Come from companies that are my normal vendors in
> my business, that are branching out.  Now, instead of selling
> me product so I can make money, they are going to put up
> their own, so they can compete with me in the leasing world,
> while they also provide broadband.
>
> Hmmm
> Don't take your organs to heaven,
> heaven knows we need them down here!
> Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant Fromthe California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)

[Matt Liotta]

On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:

> Isn't Ben a WISPA member? I thought he'd told me two ISPCons ago he
> was going to join...
>
Not that I am aware.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Question re: WISP for sale

[Matt Liotta]

So it would seem, but that is not the case. There are plenty of  
companies looking to acquire operators right now that are EBITDA  
positive. Unfortunately, too many operators that would normally be  
interested in a deal are hoping for a windfall thanks to ARRA. This  
means that the supply of available companies is low.

I think I am going to be stuck buying companies not interested in ARRA.

-Matt

On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> I'd point out that the best time to get a high valuation in a rural  
> area is
> not likely going to be at the launch of a $7billion dollar grant  
> program.
> Why buy other's outdated equipment when you can get the brand new  
> state of
> the art for FREE?  You are probably going to have to rely more on  
> "cash
> flow" related methods of valuation.
>
> Instead, you might want to look at your finances, and see if your  
> network
> could be leveraged to be combined with another's RUS loan/grant.
> For example, if the assets could be leveraged to make expanding from  
> it more
> cost effective. Because then your value might be higher based on the
> additional grants that are enabled because your infrastructure helps  
> qualify
> it.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 3:21 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Question re: WISP for sale
>
>
>> I apologize as I know this has been discussed on the list before.  We
>> are entertaining the idea of selling out of our respectable size
>> wireless ISP business in eastern Oklahoma.  We have about 500  
>> (growing
>> daily) subscribers.  Anyway, we are working on determining the net  
>> worth
>> of the business.  Any thoughts or formulas for determining this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
>> Computer Network Solutions
>> CSWEB.NET Internet Services
>> IT Manager
>>
>> http://www.cnetworksolutions.com
>> http://www.csweb.net
>>
>> (918) 235-0414
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential  
>> and
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>> notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail  
>> and
>> destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a
>> person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be
>> illegal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] Question re: WISP for sale

[Matt Liotta]

Revenue matters a lot less now. Earnings-based deals are what are  
being done now. Of course, many WISPs are spending all of their  
earnings on CAPEX. This is where capitalized leases play such a  
critical role.

-Matt

On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

> 3x gross annual was a very nice number... but not realistic any  
> longer.
>
> 1.5x is the last number I heard for an actual sale that went through.
>
> Travis
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> One way I have heard it done:
>>
>> Take the annual gross revenue, times it by 3 (three years gross  
>> revenue) and
>> that's the buy out cost starting point.  Seen this more so with  
>> telecom
>> (voice) then data services, but it's a place to start.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth."
>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr <
>> pni...@cnetworksolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I apologize as I know this has been discussed on the list before.   
>>> We
>>> are entertaining the idea of selling out of our respectable size
>>> wireless ISP business in eastern Oklahoma.  We have about 500  
>>> (growing
>>> daily) subscribers.  Anyway, we are working on determining the net  
>>> worth
>>> of the business.  Any thoughts or formulas for determining this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick Nix, Jr.,
>>> Computer Network Solutions
>>> CSWEB.NET Internet Services
>>> IT Manager
>>>
>>> http://www.cnetworksolutions.com
>>> http://www.csweb.net
>>>
>>> (918) 235-0414
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain  
>>> confidential and
>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,  
>>> please
>>> notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail  
>>> and
>>> destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information  
>>> by a
>>> person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be
>>> illegal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.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] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant Fromthe California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)

[Matt Liotta]

On Jul 17, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> Clearly a victory that some government bodies are recognizing WISP  
> provers.
> (Even if they are a publically traded company :-)
>
Just to clarify... We partnered with a local operator named Mother  
Lode Internet. The local operator will focus on last mile, while we  
focus on backhaul and backend operations. Since we are already a  
regulated telecommunications provider in all 48 states, use GAAP, and  
have regular audits, we are well positioned to work with the government.

>> advanced broadband services to five counties in Northern California
>
> Do you mind sharing what 5 counties RapidLink will be serving?
>
Alpine, Calaveras, Amador, Mariposa, Tuolumne

-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] Rapid Link Awarded Approximately $2.8 Million Grant From the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)

[Matt Liotta]

CASF Funding to Accelerate Broadband Services Delivery to Five Counties

Company to Seek Additional Funding Through ARRA Broadband Stimulus  
Programs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rapid-Link-Awarded-iw-2628732805.html?x=0&.v=1

-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/

Re: [WISPA] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

Just to follow up, IP SLA via SNMP gets me most of the way there. For  
Netflow I am having to write a Java daemon, but I am having some  
initial success. Looks like a couple more days of programming and I  
will be there. I did find that not every Cisco supports IP SLA.  
Luckily, every voice customer of ours has a Cisco that does.

-Matt

On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:

> Good call... I forgot all about IP SLA. We can easily query that via
> SNMP.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Rutis, Cameron wrote:
>
>> I haven't worked with it yet but cisco's IP SLA feature can generate
>> a MOS score
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/tk920/technologies_white_paper0900aecd801752ec.html
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:29 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] ntop
>>
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter?
>>>
>> I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter
>> information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter  
>> of
>> RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate
>> that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding
>> latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how
>> does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more
>> ideal.
>>
>> -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/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

Good call... I forgot all about IP SLA. We can easily query that via  
SNMP.

-Matt

On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Rutis, Cameron wrote:

> I haven't worked with it yet but cisco's IP SLA feature can generate  
> a MOS score
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/tk920/technologies_white_paper0900aecd801752ec.html
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:29 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] ntop
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter?
>>
> I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter
> information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of
> RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate
> that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding
> latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how
> does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more
> ideal.
>
> -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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 29, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Are you looking for specific specs like latency and jitter?
>
I was hoping for something better. I can get latency and jitter  
information at layer3 from our Ciscos as well as latency and jitter of  
RTP itself from our soft switches. However, it is hard to correlate  
that into something high level and useful. Clearly thresholding  
latency and jitter is useful, but assuming neither are too high how  
does one know about the quality of a call. A MOS score would be more  
ideal.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Parr wrote:

> Do you have any specific questions? Yes, it can identify most VoIP
> traffic, and yes, it can take a netflow feed.
>
I am looking for a few things. One is to be able to track utilization  
on a per AS basis both in realtime and over time. We have an appliance  
that can do this now, but I am not overly happy with the information I  
can get out of it. Regarding VoIP, I'd like to capture quality metrics  
in realtime and over time. Further, if ntop can perform these tasks -- 
which I understand it can-- then I am looking for feedback on how well  
it does in this regard.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

I am looking for something more historical and high level.

-Matt

On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> I prefer analyzing with Wireshark, as it is much easier and has a  
> lot of
> tools.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Matt Liotta   
> wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of
>> netflow and voip.
>>
>> -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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] ntop

[Matt Liotta]

Anyone have any experience with ntop? Specially, with analysis of  
netflow and voip.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz Exclusion Zone

[Matt Liotta]

The appendix calculations are only an example. Earth stations are not  
required to follow them for determining interference. IMHO, keyhole  
calculations coupled with standard interference calculations a la part  
101 PCN is a superior methodology.

-Matt

On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Charles Wyble wrote:

> BTW the calculations in the R&O appendix have errors. I have a  
> corrected
> version provided to me by the FCC OET. If there is interest I can post
> it online and send the link.
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> 150km radius
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
>>
>>> Okay I'm banging my head against the wall a bit this morning J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subpart Z of the FCC Part 90 Rules - Wireless Broadband Serices in  
>>> the
>>> 3650-3700 MHz Band - Section 90.1331 states:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, base
>>> and
>>> fixed stations may not be located within 150 km of any grandfathered
>>> satellite earth station operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The
>>> coordinates
>>> of these stations are available at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sd/3650";
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My interpretation of that rule would mean that you need to draw a
>>> circle of
>>> a radius of 150Km from each station, and this is your exclusion  
>>> zone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet many maps on the web show this 150Km requirement as diameter.
>>> not as a
>>> radius.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our office would be outside of the exclusion zone if it is a  
>>> diameter
>>> requirement, yet inside the exclusion zone if it is a radius
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone point me to something from the FCC that specifies what  
>>> the
>>> requirement is?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel White
>>>
>>> 3-dB Networks
>>>
>>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz Exclusion Zone

[Matt Liotta]

150km radius

-Matt

On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:

> Okay I'm banging my head against the wall a bit this morning J
>
>
>
> Subpart Z of the FCC Part 90 Rules - Wireless Broadband Serices in the
> 3650-3700 MHz Band - Section 90.1331 states:
>
>
>
> "(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, base  
> and
> fixed stations may not be located within 150 km of any grandfathered
> satellite earth station operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band. The  
> coordinates
> of these stations are available at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sd/3650";
>
>
>
> My interpretation of that rule would mean that you need to draw a  
> circle of
> a radius of 150Km from each station, and this is your exclusion zone.
>
>
>
> Yet many maps on the web show this 150Km requirement as diameter.  
> not as a
> radius.
>
>
>
> Our office would be outside of the exclusion zone if it is a diameter
> requirement, yet inside the exclusion zone if it is a radius  
> requirement.
>
>
>
> Can anyone point me to something from the FCC that specifies what the
> requirement is?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Daniel White
>
> 3-dB Networks
>
> http://www.3dbnetworks.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] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network

[Matt Liotta]

More importantly OSPF or most IGPs for that matter can only get so  
large before their performance becomes an issue. BGP doesn't have  
these scalability issues. Therefore, large networks run OSPF or ISIS  
for select parts of their network and then aggregate the parts behind  
BGP.

-Matt

On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Charles Wu wrote:

> Dynamic route redistribution if your network is sufficiently complex  
> and you have customers that you are servicing bgp to that you want  
> to protect from intra-network failure
>
> -Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:50 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network
>
> What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal
> network?
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP

[Matt Liotta]

If you provide the prefixes in question it would be easier. You may  
want to have your customer check with their other upstreams to see  
what communities they support. BGP communities that adjust local  
preference are preferred over prepending. See http://www.onesc.net/communities/ 
  for a listing for a number of providers.

-Matt

On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

> Exactly,
>
> The problem is not for own ip space, its for a downstream customer ips
> space,  they have several providers and want to favor our link for  
> some
> ip ranges.  They are prepending such ranges to the other providers to
> favor our link.
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of David
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:02 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
>
> You prepend the link you want to disfavor.  The more you prepend the
> longer a route will look.
>
> David
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:57 PM
>> To: WISPA General List; can...@believewireless.net
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
>>
>> Should I not prepend to favor our link?
>>
>>
>> Gino A. Villarini
>> g...@aeronetpr.com
>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:52 PM
>> To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
>>
>> You mean prepending AS numbers, not routes. Prepending will also
>> lengthen the the calculation, so if they are prepending to you, this
>> would the route through your link less favorable to the outside  
>> world.
>>
>> Are you seeing the prepend coming from their routers? On a cisco it
>> would be show ip neighbor  received-routes, if you are
>> seeing the prepend from them, check and see if you are forwarding  
>> them
>
>> on to your upstream show ip neighbor > interface>
>
>> advertised-routes. If you see these in both places, it's most likely
>> your upstream not allowing the prepend.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>> Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers
>> routes?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwick
>> wrote:
>>>
 I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work.

 t...@mattke.net

 Regards,

 Jeff

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP

 Anyone available for some BGP support?

 Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending
 some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> -
>> -
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> -
>> -
>>> --
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> -
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> -

Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David wrote:

> You prepend the link you want to disfavor.  The more you prepend the  
> longer
> a route will look.
>
Assuming your upstream didn't increase your local preference, which is  
normally the case these days. AS prepending is no longer the ideal  
methodology for traffic engineering.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Cisco IOS licensing policies (was: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet cards)

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:26 PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> So you actually don't have any documentation that resale of Cisco gear
> transfer the IOS license, thus making the gear usable (in Cisco's  
> eyes)
> to the second-hand buyer. Gotcha.
>
Do you have any actual documentation where Cisco successfully sued the  
parties involved in a resale? Gotcha

> While I believe they'd be in the legal right to start shutting down  
> eBay
> auctions and resale businesses, they know it'd be a PR nightmare.
>
What gives you that belief? What legal concept would allow for such a  
thing?

> Cisco likely turns a blind eye to this sort of thing for the same  
> reason
> many software companies are somewhat ambivalent about the rampant  
> piracy
> of their software. They don't lose that much in real sales (John Q.
> Highschooler wasn't about to spend $1000 on Photoshop anyway), and  
> if he
> has a talent for art and gets a Real Job, it's very likely his  
> employer
> will insist on using properly-licensed software instead of that  
> pirated
> copy that came with a keygen and a bonus Trojan.
>
Cisco doesn't turn a blind eye at all. They don't want a grey market  
for their gear. They have written a license, created a policy, and  
have put forth various efforts to convince people against the resell  
of their product. The fact that millions of dollars worth of Cisco  
resale goes on tells how ineffective these techniques are. Of course,  
the best part is that their policy's biggest advocates are their  
competitors. Too often these competitors find their new products  
priced similar to used Cisco products. And the used Cisco product  
still wins! Not on merit or anything, but Cisco owns the majority of  
the market and they control the majority of the labor pool who makes  
product decisions.

Anyway... I don't stand to benefit by scaring people away from Cisco.  
I am also not stuck using non-Cisco gear in my network where I feel  
some need to attack Cisco. Cisco gear may not be the best on the  
market in a very category, but it is hard to argue the gear isn't good  
and effective. It is also hard to reconcile the fact that there is a  
huge labor pool of Cisco trained and experienced professionals. Any  
successful business knows that people are the hardest part when one  
tries to scale a business. Picking Cisco makes that easier.

Now on to the actual argument. Can Cisco sell a piece of hardware with  
included software required to run it, force the owner of the hardware  
to accept a license in order to use it and subsequently tie a future  
owner of the hardware that acquires it from the original owner to the  
terms of the license? No. The license is simply unenforceable. There  
is a ton of case law to support this and Cisco knows it. Further,  
their suggestion that they have these rights, but thus far have failed  
to enforce them only furthers their inability to enforce the license  
terms.

Does that mean you can move software images from device to device  
without a license? No. Does that mean you can buy some router and  
install any software you want on it without a license? No.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Also, your opinion on this subject seems to have changed.  This is  
> from your
> post on 3-18-2008.  The first part is David Smith's question to you:
>
How so? The IOS software issue continues to be complicated, which was  
my original point. Meanwhile, competing vendors like yourself continue  
to spread FUD.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

That is a policy statement. It is not legal fact.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

>> From Cisco's own website:
>
> Policy:
> Cisco's current policy is that Software is not transferable without  
> Cisco's
> prior written consent and payment of any license fee ("License Fee")  
> unless
> one of the exceptions below in the "Exceptions" section applies.  
> Regardless
> of whether a License Fee is payable under this Policy, the  
> transferee may be
> required to pay Service inspection or reinstatement fees in  
> accordance with
> Cisco policies located here.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/cisco_software_transfer_relicensing_policy.h
> tml
>
> Jeff
> ImageStream
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:20 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
>
> That was worthless... don't take your word, take some some blogger's  
> word.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
>
>> It's not FUD Matt.  It's real.  I have a pricelist from them with the
>> fees required to relicense gear...might as well buy the new ones.
>> Don't take my
>> word:
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/14756
>>
>> Jeff
>> ImageStream
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:53 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? Used to be,  
>>> the
>>> software on a Cisco router was licensed to an entity separate from
>>> the
>>> purchase of the hardware. Thus, if you bought a router "used," its
>>> (already-installed) copy of IOS was unlicensed and you'd have to
>>> buy a
>>> new software license to use the router.
>>>
>> That is FUD from competing vendors.
>>
>> -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/
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> Matt,
>
> That was just the first article I found.  There are plenty of  
> others.  When
> this first came out, I was on the ISP-Equipment List and it was a huge
> subject of conversation.  Many of the resellers of used Cisco gear  
> put a
> note on their front web pages that "software relicensing is the
> responsibility of the buyer".  Cisco was clearly trying to get rid  
> of the
> used market at that time.
>
> I have a Cisco pricelist with the relicense fees.
>
I am sure you do. The question is who is subject to them and in what  
case do they apply. I doubt you will provide answers.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

 From your own article reference...

"Legal experts have varied opinions on the enforceability of some  
transfer restrictions, but they agree on one point: If anyone is to be  
found guilty of violating the software license, it would be the  
original purchaser who resold the equipment. The first buyer, after  
all, is the one who had a chance to see the license agreement and know  
about the software transfer restriction."

Think about it... if the FUD was correct then leasing Cisco hardware  
would not work. This is because title to the hardware is in the hands  
of the leaser and is generally transfered at the end with a buy out.  
The amount of leased Cisco hardware is astounding.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:09 PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>> Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing?
>>>
>> That is FUD from competing vendors.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/t/hardware/hidden-cost-hardware-729
>
> This is six years old - but that's kinda my point. At least in the  
> past,
> Cisco was insistent on relicensing IOS fees, which were sold  
> separately
> from SmartNet support contracts.
>
> Cisco itself still seems to think this is the case:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/iosswrel/prod_gen_ios_licensing.html
> "Do not transfer Cisco IOS software licenses from one company to  
> another
> except in special circumstances, such as company mergers."
>
> And the license itself:
> http://www.cisco.com/public/sw-license-agreement.html
> uses the word "nontransferable" in a couple places, though that  
> could be
> boilerplate.
>
> I'd love to be wrong on this, so if you've got documentation  
> supporting
> your assertion that IOS licenses are attached to hardware (and thus  
> can
> be transferred with the hardware itself), please post it.
>
>
> 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/

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

That was worthless... don't take your word, take some some blogger's  
word.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:

> It's not FUD Matt.  It's real.  I have a pricelist from them with  
> the fees
> required to relicense gear...might as well buy the new ones.  Don't  
> take my
> word:
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/14756
>
> Jeff
> ImageStream
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:53 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
>
>> Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? Used to be, the
>> software on a Cisco router was licensed to an entity separate from  
>> the
>> purchase of the hardware. Thus, if you bought a router "used," its
>> (already-installed) copy of IOS was unlicensed and you'd have to  
>> buy a
>> new software license to use the router.
>>
> That is FUD from competing vendors.
>
> -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/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, David E. Smith wrote:

> Did Cisco ever come to their senses on IOS licensing? Used to be, the
> software on a Cisco router was licensed to an entity separate from the
> purchase of the hardware. Thus, if you bought a router "used," its
> (already-installed) copy of IOS was unlicensed and you'd have to buy a
> new software license to use the router.
>
That is FUD from competing vendors.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

A lot less than you would think. We run Cisco for our entire network.  
Costs have come way down on new equipment and there is a ton of used  
equipment for pennies on dollar.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Kevin Neal wrote:

> I've found Cisco ports are more expensive than a Mikrotik distribution
> router.  We currently have a Cisco handling BGP and upstream  
> connections,
> then we distribute it using a switch to multiple Mikrotik boxes that
> distribute and route(OSPF) to our various backhauls.  I'd cringe to  
> think
> what it would cost for us to run all of our radios at our NOC into a  
> cisco.
> -Kevin
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Matt Jenkins  >wrote:
>
>> Even if I go to a NPE-G1 or G2 I still need a total of 5 ports.
>>
>> 1 for inbound connection.
>> 2 for outbound to radios that serve different towers
>> 1 for local network of servers etc.
>> 1 for colo customer.
>>
>> How do I add those other two ports?
>>
>>
>> Randy Cosby wrote:
>>> Which NPE are you using?
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>> Matt Jenkins wrote:
 I have a 7204VXR router as my core. I am looking at upgrading  
 from a
 100mb ethernet to a gigE. I am having a really hard time find out  
 how I
 can add gigabit ethernet (via RJ-45 connectors) to this router. I  
 have
 two spare slots of expansion cards but I cannot find a card that  
 does
 gig. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

 Thanks,

 - 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/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] OT: Cisco 7200 Gigabit Ethernet Cards?

[Matt Liotta]

There is only one PA that can support GigE, which is the PA-GE.  
Unfortunately, the slot can't support the full capacity of the  
interface. Depending on what engine you have you will not likely  
exceed 200Mbps with that interface. The only way to really handle GigE  
with a 7200 is to get at least an NPE-G1, which has GigE interfaces on  
board. The NPE-G2 also has GigE interfaces on board.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:

> I have a 7204VXR router as my core. I am looking at upgrading from a
> 100mb ethernet to a gigE. I am having a really hard time find out  
> how I
> can add gigabit ethernet (via RJ-45 connectors) to this router. I have
> two spare slots of expansion cards but I cannot find a card that does
> gig. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - 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] Legal Entity - which type? Was: Quesiton on Funding /Financing / Capital Availability

[Matt Liotta]

Except you have a financial person giving legal advise. No competent  
lawyer is going to agree. It is a simple fact that a corporation  
provides the highest liability protection for an individual of the  
available business structures.

-Matt

On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:09 AM, RickG wrote:

> Makes sense to me...thanks! -RickG
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Marlon K. Schafer  > wrote:
>> Let me get my accountant wife to answer that one.  Here's Melissa
>>
>> Well, for us it's not yet in our best interest to incorporate.   
>> Sometimes
>> the reason for incorporating is to help insulate the individual  
>> from a
>> lawsuit - but usually if the corp is sued, they also sue the owner  
>> of the
>> corp.  I agree with you about the S-Corp - the income from an S- 
>> Corp is
>> picked up on your personal return so there aren't usually as many  
>> advantages
>> when doing tax planning.  We have not incorporated because the cost  
>> of being
>> a corp (accounting, legal, another set of books, more time on  
>> Melissa's part
>> to work on the books...) is greater to us right now than the  
>> benefits.  I
>> see it as something that we will probably need to do in the future  
>> as our
>> income increases and we need to do more tax planning.  Hope that  
>> helps.
>> Melissa
>>
>> There ya have it!
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "RickG" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 12:02 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Legal Entity - which type? Was: Quesiton on Funding
>> /Financing / Capital Availability
>>
>>
>> Ha! Another interesting topic! In the past, when doing business for
>> myself, I legally filed as a sole-proprietor. When I got into the  
>> WISP
>> business, for a multitude of reasons, I became an "S-Corp". After
>> filing my taxes, it seems to be much simpler and possibly more
>> advantageous to just be a sole-proprietor. But that goes against all
>> advise I receive.
>> Marlon, I'm actually surprised that you are a sole-proprietor. What
>> benefits have you found by remaining so?
>> -RickG
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marlon K. Schafer
>>  wrote:
>>> One more thing. I don't agree with your definitions per se'.
>>>
>>> We all have businesses. A proprietorship is a TYPE of business. We  
>>> are a
>>> proprietorship because I'm not incorporated (incorporating is over  
>>> rated
>>> and
>>> expensive to do right). I'm still a business though
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_proprietorship
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset
>>>
>>> marlon
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Charles Wu" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:03 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital
>>> Availability
>>>
>>>
 Hi Marlon,

 I think it's appropriate to make a few definitions and  
 distinctions on
 things so everyone is on the same page

 Specifically, for purposes of making my point, I define

 Proprietorship: A commercial activity engaged in as a means of  
 livelihood
 or profit

 Business: A unique system of processes and procedures that  
 documents and
 codifies a specific method of proprietorship

 Asset: cash, inventory, equipment, infrastructure, customer  
 contracts,
 brand, marketing, etc

> Grin. Sure it is. That's what a LOT of small business people do.  
> It's
> also kind of common for doctors, dentists, plumbers etc  
> Sometimes it
> sucks,

 Now, everything you stated above is just a method of  
 proprietorship, and
 in most cases, from a sale perspective, a proprietorships isn't  
 worth
 anything more than the depreciated value of its assets

 Say you were buying out the local plumber's office -- what would  
 he have
 of value? His truck? Some old tools? A customer list / brand  
 perhaps
 (but the reality of things is that customers do business with him  
 because
 of him, and if you bought him out and he moved out of town, those
 customers would probably go back to being on the open market)

 Now, in comparing the WISP 'proprietorship' vs. the plumber, it's  
 worth
 noting that the WISP is somewhat unique in that it results in the
 creation
 of an independent asset that holds onto a lot of value (e.g., the
 recurring revenue and everything that goes to support it); in  
 many ways,
 this is akin to real-estate

> Not
> everyone out there even wants to get that big (if I had a nickle  
> for
> every
> business owner that's told me the most fun they had and the most  
> money
> they
> made was when it was just them, no employees..) But then  
> again,
> that's
> one of the really cool things about this buisness, it's big  
> enough and
> flexible enough to a

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Stimulus Allocations?

[Matt Liotta]

At the end of the day, the agencies giving out the money have to give  
out a lot of money in a very short period of time. To achieve this  
they plan on dividing up the allocations across a variety of other  
entities for help as well as allocating large sums to individual  
companies. This means applications for small amounts of money just  
aren't going to be considered. Of course the flip side is that  
organizations submitting applications for larger amounts than they can  
actual handle are going to be denied as well. In other words, this  
whole process is self-selecting for large companies with resources.

Now then... what do you need to be able to show to have any chance?  
Your application needs to be for a large amount of money say at least  
$25MM. Your company needs to have previously been awarded a grant for  
a broadband project. You need to have matching funds lined up ahead of  
time that cover not only the requirements of the grant, but also your  
overhead costs associated with ramping up to do the project. This is  
because you need to hire people to implement the project or it won't  
be "shovel ready".

Once you have the above then you will be just another application  
worthy of consideration. If you want to get to the top of the pile  
then you are going to need recommendations from your PUC/PSC, and/or  
congressman, and/or governor.

Also, should you be submitting applications to RUS that plan on  
utilizing 3650, remember that Adelstein was a major proponent of  
3650's hybrid licensing model. Do you have a large 3650 deployment? Is  
it compliant with the rules?

-Matt

On May 25, 2009, at 9:01 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:

> Charles is right 100%, and he is being as proactive as any VAR  
> (including DR
> and ourselves... Charles did a WiNOG on this not to long ago) trying  
> to
> figure the mess out so you can get the money (hopefully you'll spend  
> it with
> us right!).
>
> Here is what I know (and I've done more research and had more  
> conversations
> than I think I cared to):
>
> - No one knows where the money is going to go or who is going to get  
> it.
> Some people think the States are going to get all the money, others  
> that
> Fiber will get all of the money, Telco's will get it, only people  
> that have
> received RUS funding in the past will get it, etc.  No one has a  
> clear idea
> of where the money is going, so it's hard to say what anyone can do  
> to help
> you get the money except give you an idea of what the RUS process is  
> like.
>
> - Realistically, the only (and best) thing WISPA can do is provide a  
> forum
> for people to discuss what they are doing to get the money, and  
> WISPA can
> help lobby the government to get the money into our hands.  I wouldn't
> expect WISPA to provide a "grant in a box" widget :-)
>
> - Many people are arguing already that if you haven't already filed
> paperwork, you're not going to get any money.  It's amazing how many  
> people
> have already put in RUS applications to get this money, before the  
> rules on
> who is going to get it has been defined!
>
> - There are a 1,000 people now that think they are going to get a  
> million
> dollars from the Government to start a WISP... I'm afraid they are  
> going to
> crash and burn Metricom style.  So while an incumbent might be the  
> better
> choice to get the money, the packages newcomers are putting together  
> are
> pretty impressive.  But I digress... because...
>
> - Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the WISP industry gets  
> even 10%
> of the money... the sad thing being we can do much more with it than  
> the
> people that probably will get it.
>
> Anyways, I wouldn't expect any reseller/distributor/trade  
> organization to
> give you the secret sauce on how to get that money.  Sure we are all  
> doing
> research to try to help people get money, but it doesn't mean they  
> will be
> right (I've seen some pretty interesting ideas on who/how people are  
> going
> to get money... some that I've wanted to laugh at).  So I would start
> looking at filling out some of the RUS paperwork, and gathering as  
> much
> information as you can.  In the long run, if you want the money,  
> YOUR going
> to have to go get it... everyone else can help though :-)
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Charles Wu
>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:46 PM
>> To: sarn...@info-ed.com; WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Stimulus Allocations?
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>>> What has WISPA came up with to help WISP's get in on the broadband
>> stimulus package? Throw me some bait? As I promised before, my
>> membership fees(after >tax season) are sitting here... give me  
>> something
>> to bite. Not being an A**, but I belonged to one place(not WISPA),  
>> but
>> didn't get much out of it.
>>
>>> I did receiv

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Matt Liotta]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Brad Belton wrote:

> Your argument makes the assumption there are no other options for a  
> tenant
> other than the property in question.
>
No it doesn't make that assumption. Tenants make long term decisions  
related to property leases. In many cases, the tenant makes  
assumptions and expectations about their use of the property without  
getting those assumptions and expectations in a lease document.  
Further, the property owner does a similar thing and as such has  
certain liabilities that aren't protected in their leases. All of this  
is because generally the people negotiating the leases aren't savvy  
with technology.

A perfect case in point is Wi-Fi. I know of no major REITs that have  
clauses in their leases regarding Wi-Fi or indeed inference issues.  
Yet, every company I know plans to have a Wi-Fi network deployed in  
their leased space. Now if you assume that an MTU is going to have  
multiple tenants that all are going to deploy Wi-Fi in close proximity  
you have a natural interference issue. In fact, with today's 802.11N  
you now have less overlapping channels then you did before. Couple  
this with many "enterprise" Wi-Fi vendors including "rogue" AP  
detection and mitigation features that attempt to disable Wi-Fi APs  
over the air. Clearly a war is brewing between tenants' Wi-Fi networks  
that can only result in multiple tenants becoming unhappy with the  
interference. It will fall to the property owner to resolve the issue.  
Yet the property owner doesn't have any legal standing to force  
tenants to deploy their Wi-Fi networks in any particular way.

> This is really no different than restaurants that allow smoking vs.
> restaurants that don't allow smoking.  If you want to smoke you will  
> dine at
> restaurants that allow smoking and the ones that forbid smoking  
> won't get
> your business.  This works for the non-smokers too.  Personally I'm a
> non-smoker and dine at either smoking or non-smoking restaurants,  
> but we all
> know people that are adamant on both sides of the issue.
>
It is quite different actually. Again, telecom issues are almost never  
dealt with until after the lease has been signed. I can't tell you how  
many deals we get because tenants signed a lease and need telecom  
services delivered, but their preferred vendor is unable to deliver in  
time or in budget due to construction issues.

> Regarding your tenant lease renewal example, doubt the property  
> owner will
> make publicly known (regardless as to the reason) why he chooses not  
> to
> renew a tenant's lease.  Is there a law I'm unaware of that forces a
> landlord to give reason for not renewing a lease?  Eviction, sure,  
> but not
> for renewals.  Have you ever read a lease agreement closely?  They are
> always heavily weighted towards the landlord vs. the tenant as they  
> should
> be.  Again, there is nothing forcing a tenant to lease there as they  
> can
> always lease elsewhere.
>
I shutter to think about the shear number of lease agreements I have  
signed, so I have a pretty good idea about the process and standard  
terms. You argue the tenant will never know. Yet, my experience is  
that landlords are all to eager to tell a tenant why.

> There are many limitations that can prevent the number of providers  
> in one
> property.  Riser space or roof space may be limited among many other
> limitations.  Roof or other building warranties may be voided if the  
> new
> provider is negligent or even if they aren't negligent.  Insurance
> requirements will need to meet the property owner's requirements.  The
> property owner can essentially make it cost prohibitive for you to  
> enter the
> property if they choose to do so.
>
Maybe; I have never seen it with any large REIT. Little property  
owners often try and fail.

> Again, in the end the property owner will prevail as they should.   
> It is
> after all their property and they should have final say what happens  
> to
> their property.  If their decisions are poor and result in lost lease
> revenue than they'll be gone soon enough and maybe the new owner  
> will see
> the benefit to allowing the right additional providers into the  
> property.
>
Depending on what you mean by prevail. I have had my share of property  
owners win the battle and lose the war so to speak.

> The market always works these issues out themselves.
>
No it doesn't. Again, see the Sherman Act for generic anti-trust  
issues and the 1996 Telecom Act for specific competitive issues  
relating to our industry. In both cases, the government was forced to  
act because the market couldn't work it out for themselves.

> If you are truly offering a better product that is desirable then  
> all of
> this is a moot point.  The problem is today (due to our current  
> government
> nanny state) any Joe Shmo can call themselves a Telco Provider.  Savvy
> property owners should, can and will keep those out that they don't  
> 

Re: [WISPA] Service Limits

[Matt Liotta]

 OTARD's umbrella.
>
>
> http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm032608.pdf
>
> http://www.dlapiper.com/us/publications/detail.aspx?pub=3094
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:30 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>
>> Care to explain how that is illegal?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mike Hammett" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>
>>
>>> Actually, there was a law passed a couple years ago that prevented  
>>> this
>>> very
>>> thing.  They cannot stop Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Level 3,  
>>> or Joe's
>>> Crab Shack Internet Service from installing cables from outside into
>>> their
>>> suite.  They can make it costly and they can make it a PITA, but  
>>> they
>>> must
>>> allow their installation.
>>>
>>> The flip side of this issue is property own only allowing Bob's  
>>> Telecom,
>>> which is excessively priced because Bob and Jim (your landlord) are
>>> brothers.  That is illegal.  Same situation as we're talking about  
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Brad Belton" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 PM
>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>>
>>>> Hello Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Have to step in here and disagree.  Private property.  If they  
>>>> don't
>>>> want
>>>> you they can keep you out one way or another.  This may not sit  
>>>> well
>>>> with
>>>> some, but it is the proper thing to do.  The market will always  
>>>> sort
>>>> these
>>>> type of issues out themselves without third party or government
>>>> intervention.
>>>>
>>>> This is no different than comparing any property amenity.   
>>>> Property "A"
>>>> has
>>>> XYZ vs. Property "B" doesn't.  Some will find the XYZ amenity  
>>>> important
>>>> and
>>>> opt for Property "A" over "B".  If enough people do then you can  
>>>> bet
>>>> Property "B" will find a way to add XYZ or a comparable amenity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of John Thomas
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:26 PM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Service Limits
>>>>
>>>> I realize that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that hasn't
>>>> happened here.
>>>> We have Office space in Bishop Ranch, San Ramon CA. We are not  
>>>> allowed
>>>> in the MPOE, and apparently others aren't either. We have been  
>>>> able to
>>>> get T-1s pulled in, and then we gave handed the authorized  
>>>> personnel the
>>>> other end of our Cat 5 to punch down and connect our Service  
>>>> Providers
>>>> T-1's. When we asked Time Warner about the fiber, they sent us a  
>>>> map,
>>>> showing fiber at the sidewalk, less than 100 feet away, and they  
>>>> claimed
>>>> that Bishop Ranch wouldn't lt them in the MPOE, so they couldn't
>>>> deliver. Maybe someone has bogus information?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>> If you want their service, they can't restrict you, AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
&

Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please... - OFFLIST

[Matt Liotta]

Since you replied onlist... Yes, nLayer is in our mix, but they only  
get about 10% of our transit traffic. It helps being peered to 100s of  
ASNs. ;)

-Matt

On May 15, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Charles Wu wrote:

> You're using Nlayer these days?
>
> -Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:53 AM
> To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to  
> me please...
>
> [~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
> --07:49:09--  http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
>=> `dummy.zip'
> Connecting to 208.65.55.55:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
> Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip]
>
> 100%
> [=
> =
> >]
> 63,375,843 4.08M/sETA 00:00
>
> 07:49:21 (5.14 MB/s) - `dummy.zip' saved [63375843/63375843]
>
> [~]# wget http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
> --07:49:33--  http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
>=> `dummy.zip.1'
> Connecting to 64.128.251.33:80... connected.
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
> Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip]
>
> 100%
> [=
> =
> >]
> 63,375,843 2.42M/sETA 00:00
>
> 07:49:58 (2.41 MB/s) - `dummy.zip.1' saved [63375843/63375843]
>
> [~]# traceroute 64.128.251.33
> traceroute to 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33), 30 hops max, 38 byte
> packets
>  1  66.187.180.9 (66.187.180.9)  0.379 ms  0.342 ms  0.224 ms
>  2  ge3-43.ar1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.65)  0.500 ms  0.481 ms
> 0.359 ms
>  3  ae0.cr1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.129)  0.293 ms  0.281 ms
> 0.221 ms
>  4  xe-0-1-0.cr2.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.106)  13.458 ms
> 16.902 ms  13.460 ms
>  5  eqix.asbn.twtelecom.net (206.223.115.36)  14.210 ms  14.403 ms
> 14.194 ms
>  6  66.192.243.164 (66.192.243.164)  24.834 ms  24.774 ms  24.831 ms
>  7  64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33)  26.691 ms  26.759 ms  26.943 ms
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>
>>
>> Just download a file via http from our web server at
>> http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
>> and then
>> http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
>>
>> Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to
>> just one
>> of the servers please (they take same route).
>>
>> If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then
>> the data
>> is not too useful for me...
>>
>> Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance.
>>
>> Scott Carullo
>> Brevard Wireless
>> 321-205-1100 x102
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please...

[Matt Liotta]

Personally, I wouldn't go with TW Telecom for bandwidth. They tend to  
be overly pricy and their peering is too selective. In a case where  
the city you are located in doesn't have good peering such as Orlando  
you need to carefully select your upstream. In the case of TW Telecom,  
they have hardly any peers in Atlanta, which is the closest major  
peering point to you. This causes most of your US based traffic to  
flow through Ashburn or Dallas.

-Matt

On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> Just download a file via http from our web server at
> http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
> and then
> http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
>
> Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to  
> just one
> of the servers please (they take same route).
>
> If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then  
> the data
> is not too useful for me...
>
> Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance.
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] I need a few people to run a bandwidth test to me please...

[Matt Liotta]

[~]# wget http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
--07:49:09--  http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
=> `dummy.zip'
Connecting to 208.65.55.55:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip]

100% 
[= 
= 
>]  
63,375,843 4.08M/sETA 00:00

07:49:21 (5.14 MB/s) - `dummy.zip' saved [63375843/63375843]

[~]# wget http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
--07:49:33--  http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
=> `dummy.zip.1'
Connecting to 64.128.251.33:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 63,375,843 (60M) [application/zip]

100% 
[= 
= 
>]  
63,375,843 2.42M/sETA 00:00

07:49:58 (2.41 MB/s) - `dummy.zip.1' saved [63375843/63375843]

[~]# traceroute 64.128.251.33
traceroute to 64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33), 30 hops max, 38 byte  
packets
  1  66.187.180.9 (66.187.180.9)  0.379 ms  0.342 ms  0.224 ms
  2  ge3-43.ar1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.65)  0.500 ms  0.481 ms   
0.359 ms
  3  ae0.cr1.atl1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.135.129)  0.293 ms  0.281 ms   
0.221 ms
  4  xe-0-1-0.cr2.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.106)  13.458 ms   
16.902 ms  13.460 ms
  5  eqix.asbn.twtelecom.net (206.223.115.36)  14.210 ms  14.403 ms   
14.194 ms
  6  66.192.243.164 (66.192.243.164)  24.834 ms  24.774 ms  24.831 ms
  7  64.128.251.33 (64.128.251.33)  26.691 ms  26.759 ms  26.943 ms

On May 14, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> Just download a file via http from our web server at
> http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
> and then
> http://64.128.251.33/dummy.zip
>
> Then email me with how fast each went and a traceroute from you to  
> just one
> of the servers please (they take same route).
>
> If you are not capable of downloading at 20MB on the Internet then  
> the data
> is not too useful for me...
>
> Thank you I appreciate your time and assistance.
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Mikrotik FCC

[Matt Liotta]

On May 12, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> Ok...  so back to original dilemma...
>
> I take a XR5, the precise antenna they certified with this radio  
> card, a
> RB411 and hook it all up and use it myself within FCC RF guidelines.
>
> Criminal or law abiding citizen...
>
Neither, but you would be in violation of the FCC regulations and be  
subject to civil penalties.

Think about this like tax law. Imagine someone makes a great case  
about how you can avoid taxes legally by doing a certain thing. You  
may believe the person and the person's reasons may seem perfectly  
logical. However, would it be smart to follow them? Probably not  
without signoff from a CPA and/or tax attorney.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik FCC

[Matt Liotta]

On May 12, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> I've been told personally by an FCC testing lab that I can take a  
> XR5 which
> has been tested with say a 23db panel antenna (with FCC) and use the  
> same
> gain antenna or less for myself and would not have to have it  
> certified
> again...  They told me not to get it tested because I didn't need to
> because Ubiquity already part certified it on that type antenna.
>
You are mixing issues. The ability to change antennas is different  
than system certification. If you had a system that was certified with  
one antenna you could change the antenna to something of similar type  
with the same or less gain without an issue. But, the system itself  
must certified.

> If this is an argument we will never resolve I can live with that,  
> but I am
> fairly sure with the resources on this list we can come to a final
> conclusion based on facts and I think we should.
>
This list is filled with resources that will tell you what you don't  
want to hear and another group that will tell you want you do want to  
hear. None of that matters. What you need to do is assume the worst  
case or get your specific case approved by the FCC. In other words,  
what you want will not work and you cannot do it until the FCC gives  
you written approval.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik FCC

[Matt Liotta]

On May 12, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> Eje Gustafsson says this is not the case or elsewhen I buy a minipci
> wireless card for my laptop it would be illegal...
>
This has been discussed at length. No matter how many times someone  
makes the laptop argument it doesn't change the fact that the FCC  
disagrees with that argument. Now someone could pay an attorney to  
argue with the FCC and get them to clarify the situation. Until that  
time the system certification requirement stands.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections bandwidth=2x why?

[Matt Liotta]

I could download the file in 16 seconds from Atlanta. Never saw it get  
past 48Mbps. Did notice it was routing through Ashburn, which is less  
than ideal if you are Florida.

-Matt

On May 11, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:

>
> Yes lots of them, from different internet connections as well.   
> Focusing on
> customers from BHN connecting to our TW Telecom fiber circuit.  Have  
> not
> been able to do enough testing outside our network though to be  
> certain.
>
> That leads me to a request...  can anyone who reads this that has  
> decent
> amount of bandwidth (>20mb available) download this file and tell me  
> your
> provider and how fast the transfer was so long as its not being  
> limited on
> your side.  I should have approx 80MB free bandwidth for this  
> transfer when
> you run it...
>
> http://208.65.55.55/dummy.zip
>
> This will help me out a bit...   thanks.   Email me off list if you  
> want
> with the results...
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>  Original Message 
>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 1:53 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections
> bandwidth=2x why?
>>
>> Have you tried with a different PC?
>>
>> On 5/11/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
>>> Any TCP traffic multiple apps same results
>>>
>>> Scott Carullo
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> (321) 205-1100 x102
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Jeff Broadwick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 We ran into something like that when a customer was using his  
 laptop
 to
 generate traffic on a frac DS3 circuit.  The issue was primarily  
 due
 to how
 his application was trying to generate traffic.

 Jeff

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org]
 On
 Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - Linktechs
 Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:41 AM
 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] One connection bandwidth=x / 2 commections
 bandwidth=2x
 why?

 Speed limit per connection?  Or per IP?

 * ---
 Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board
 Member -
 wispa.org  Link Technologies, Inc --  
 Mikrotik
 & WISP
 Support Services WISPA Vendor Member*
 *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
  */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
 

 The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by  
 the
 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is
 intended only
 for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and  
 may
 contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
 retransmission,
 dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
 upon,
 this information by persons or entities other than the intended
 recipient(s)
 is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the
 sender and
 delete the material from any computer.





 Scott Carullo wrote:
> On our main upstream connection 100mb fiber a speedtest to BHN
> yeilds
 about
> 7MB max when 15 is there...
>
> Open two connections tcp and now the transfer rate doubles (from
> same
> server to same client).
>
> What would cause this?
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>
>
 ---
 ---

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

Re: [WISPA] How does a WISP respond to this situation?

[Matt Liotta]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Lists wrote:

> Am I owed the balance of the contract?  Am I owed the cost of my  
> equipment?
>
Yes and yes assuming there is no provision in the contract why that  
would not be the case. Since the customer owes you for the service and  
the equipment if they destroy it then you need to seek payment from  
the customer. Most likely they will need to ask their insurance to  
cover it.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

> That was a PR from June 2008 Matt, when few vendors even had certified
> product in the market for more than a month or two. Further, Manish is
> not even here any longer. I joined, first as a full time consultant,  
> in
> October 22, 2008. Check out PRs since September when the new CEO,  
> Brian,
> joined.
>
Check them out for what? The Zing PR I mentioned before was Nov 4, 2008.

> There is plenty to debate here without grinding axes and manufacturing
> faux criticism.
>
Bring on the real debate then.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

> Matt, you said you needed to provide a reason why you did not suggest
> Aperto. Would it not be preferrable to provide a real reason, not
> something that is based on a weak deduction, e.g. Aperto issues few  
> PRs
> so they must not do any business?
>
I don't believe that is an accurate summarization. You can attack the  
messenger if you want, but that doesn't change the public information  
that exists. You may not like the conclusions I reached from anecdotal  
public evidence, but don't get mad at me; direct your anger to your  
marketing department. Of course, you could also point all of us to  
real 3650 Aperto deployments actively serving customers. Jeff said he  
had a list, but I haven't seen it, which means I can only use the  
public information available from Aperto PR and ULS.

> We are not nearly so large as my friends at Alvarion to be sure (who
> uses PRs sparringly, in a manner I support and respect). But we are  
> also
> far different then the three small publicly-held companies under very
> severe financial survival diress (as in they have publicly announced
> they are searching for options in order to survive) who need to issue
> customer PRs.
>
That is a double-edged sword you are wielding. You and Jeff are making  
financials of WiMAX vendors an issue. Public companies have audited  
financials we can all examine. Where is Aperto's financials for us to  
review?

> I'd also argue that we are right-sized for the 3650 space -- big  
> enough
> to have some of the best scientific minds in WiMAX (look at our  
> patents
> and role in creating the 802.16 standard), yet small enough to  
> actually
> REALLY care about the business of North American WISPs, not just
> carriers.
>
Again, maybe you need to talk to the marking department because your  
own website states, "Aperto Networks is the technology leader in the  
most challenging segment of the WiMAX equipment market: carrier-class  
infrastructure."

-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/

Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

You are not going to get the answers you are seeking. Worse still  
anyone who tries to give you those answers is either uninformed or  
lying. As I stated several posts ago, you need to have a thorough  
understanding of the equipment, have conducting extensive field  
trials, and produced a business plan specifically for the equipment  
you selected. You CANNOT get these answers from a mailing list or from  
datasheets and technical specifications. There are too many tradeoffs  
that are not altogether clear until have a specific set of equipment,  
geography, and experience.

For example, just consider the variables involved in determining  
effective throughput for a subscriber. Your SNR determines what  
modulation you can run. However, your SNR is affected by your channel  
width, use of uplink subchannelization, and/or diversity. Of course,  
lowering the channel width and using uplink subchannelization lowers  
the theoretical throughput, while raising the SNR. Then there is your  
framerate and which service flow polling priority you have assigned  
it, which determines the latency for the flow. Latency has a huge  
impact on theoretical throughput. Strangely because of the TDD nature  
of WiMAX radios higher latency enables greater throughput up and until  
it lowers the theoretical maximum throughput of the flow.

The above doesn't even consider the differences between 802.16d and  
802.16e. Nor does it consider the impact of multiple subscribers and/ 
or multiple services flows per subscriber. So what is the right answer  
to whether to use WiMAX or even which WiMAX flavor or vendor? It  
depends.

-Matt

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

> Do you have any coverage plots? When I started the other thread, I was
> really looking for the technical merit's, more then the cost  
> benefits or
> political arguments. I'm interested 802.16d vs 802.16e, some say 16e  
> is
> the greatest, some say 16d is the best, what are the technical reasons
> behind which is which.  My task at hand is to write up a comparison  
> for
> the benefit of my boss, so that we can make an informed decision on
> which technology to choose.
>
> I've read the specs, but I was hoping to get beyond that, and be  
> able to
> include issues with real world deployments, pros/cons of either  
> tech. We
> don't want to make the investments (we will run fiber to each tower)  
> and
> replace our existing deployments with it. We do want to do voice as  
> well
> (we have a switch and are a CLEC).
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> John,
>>
>> My boss has field tested Aperto's gear to 15miles at full  
>> modulation... so a
>> 30km cell radius (18 miles) is possible.
>>
>> But the thing is that wouldn't be the average deployment... and  
>> with Cyclone
>> gear you could push the system out that far too (because its going  
>> to be
>> line of sight, and the cell is going to be on a mountain top  
>> probably)
>>
>> If the only thing you know about deploying gear is trees like the  
>> east
>> coast... that expectation isn't going to work for you.  If you live  
>> in the
>> west where you have towers on mountaintops that can be seen from 70  
>> miles
>> away... its okay.
>>
>> My biggest problem with Jeff's analysis is how many customers  
>> signed up in a
>> year... I don't think any WISP will grow 500 customers in 5  
>> months.  Or even
>> 150 customers in 5 months (well I've setup a tower before and  
>> signed up that
>> many customers to one... but that is the exception rather than the  
>> norm).
>> The other catch would be... none of this math makes sense in a rip  
>> and
>> replace... so unless your new... you have to rip an old system out  
>> to get
>> WiMAX.
>>
>> I also have a slight issue with the assertion that Canopy does not do
>> VoIP... it does it just fine and many Canopy WISP's also sell VoIP  
>> services
>> (prime example... Skybeam/JAB).  There also is never a 100% take  
>> rate on it
>> (probably more like 50% tops) so that has to be factored in.
>>
>> With that said... besides the ugly CPE... we have chosen Aperto as  
>> our
>> vendor of choice in the 3.65GHz band.  I like it, and I think if  
>> you do
>> field trials with it, it will win out over many of the other systems.
>>
>> Daniel White
>> 3-dB Networks
>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of John Scrivner
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:13 AM
>>> To: jefftho...@fastmail.fm; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors
>>>
>>>
 Cell radius= 30km

 The point is for a TCO, that's one tower site to cover a
 20km radius, meaning less leases per month of 1k or more, so  
 isntead

>>> of 4
>>>
 tower sites to cover this area ( and pay 4k per month )


>>> So...how are you breaking the laws of physics with this system?  
>>> Unless
>>> you are servi

Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2009/04/20/0420airspan.html

-Matt

On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Pat O'Connor wrote:

> Anybody use Airspan for Wimax?
>
>
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>> It was interesting, but I was hoping for some more first hand  
>> experience
>> reporting. Essentially the only explanation for improved range was a
>> lower noise floor, which isn't a wimax thing, but a 3.65 thing. I  
>> think
>> a lot of the 802.16d/e talk is market speak, I'm trying to get  
>> through
>> that and establish technical reasons why one or the other is  
>> superior.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>
>>> So the recent thread on Wimax was quite interesting. I need to  
>>> read up
>>> on the different technologies involved. I believe that a fixed
>>> deployment is sufficient for many many many needs and markets  
>>> (wireless
>>> local loop if you will). If people want mobility/end user wireless  
>>> they
>>> can hang an 802.11 AP off the ethernet port of whatever CPE. Wimax
>>> directly to the end device doesn't make much sense to me, in most
>>> markets and use cases. Obviously if you are supporting a highly  
>>> mobile
>>> workforce (say public sector type stuff) then it makes a lot more  
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> It got me thinking... if one was a new WISP entering an  
>>> un(der)served
>>> market, it seems that it would not make sense to deploy standard  
>>> 802.11
>>> gear, but rather Wimax gear in 3650Mhz. Is this an accurate  
>>> assessment?
>>>
>>> One particular area that I'm targeting, doesn't have any broadband
>>> available (other then 3g from Verzion). So they would need to  
>>> purchase
>>> CPE anyway, and it wouldn't be anything they could get from Best Buy
>>> (DSL or Cable modem).
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of negotiating access to the excluded areas (in
>>> Southern California), but it's been slow going. Once I gain access  
>>> it
>>> will open up many areas to some sorely needed competition.
>>>
>>> So who are the vendors in this space worth considering?
>>> What are peoples experiences with the sales process (both pre and  
>>> post
>>> sales engineering)
>>> etc etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.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] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>
> WiMAX obviously has some things to offer.  It was written specifically
> as an outdoor wireless specification.  I think your summarization is a
> little short of the truth, though.  It would be nice, IMO, if you,  
> as an
> "operator who acutally [has] experience in the field with the gear"
> would at least answer the question instead of sitting on a high-horse.
>
How is it short specifically? Further, I thought the actual question  
was which WiMAX vendors were worth considering. And, I thought I  
answered that question.

-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/

Re: [WISPA] 3650Mhz and Wimax Vendors

[Matt Liotta]

On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Butch Evans wrote:

> Matt, I apologize for the earlier post regarding your response in this
> thread.  This post was certainly one that is helpful and addresses the
> questions that started the thread.
>
I obviously missed this email before my most recent post. However, if  
my response was short please let me know.

-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/