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
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-employ
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 mea
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 gran
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? :)
>>
>>
>
On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Ron Harden wrote:
> Yes, we source numbers from Level 3 and others. DID coverage is key
> to any
> successful digital voice program. There are some small mom-and-pop
> LECs
> that will not give up numbers because they a) don't want any
> competition,
> and b)
Voting is now open for the best of WiMAX World. It would be good PR if
WISPA could recognize one of its members as the winner. And of course
Rapid Link would appreciate it if you voted for us.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=1tQ1xOpQ_2bZi4ts6kn6WPrg_3d_3d
-Matt
---
, 2008, at 6:24 PM, John Scrivner wrote:
> I voted for you Matt. Good luck. I hope you will mention WISPA if
> you get
> it.
> All the best,
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Voting is now open f
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/081030/neth134.html?.v=1
Watch out if you are single-homed to either.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
There is already an SR3 card. I would HIGHLY suggest you test it
throughly before deploying.
-Matt
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> That would be great... but is there a time frame?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> There are companies out there working on n
We did test them. I would rather not share bad experiences on a public
list. See you at ISPCON.
-Matt
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> What does that mean? Have you tested it? Was it good or bad?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liot
On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Have we gotten any reports how 3650 works with foliage?
>
3650 sucks with foliage and more power doesn't help. Yeah it is that
bad.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join
We see on average 9dB less signal with 3650 than 2400 NLOS with all
things being equal.
-Matt
On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:42 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
> Our coverage looks like 2.4 GHz coverage in the same environment
> with the
> exception of much lower noise floor which helps extend link budgets
t; SNR at
> the edge of the coverage area.
>
> Matt, I seem to remember a post from you recently where you were
> touting a
> link through 4 miles of tress with 3650. Was I not reading that
> correctly?
> Scriv
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Matt Liotta <[EMA
On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Who said anything about using 802.16? ;-)
>
> I generally don't install a customer that has signal worse than
> -80. I want
> to maintain full modulation as best as possible. Can't expect to
> service
> too many customers if everyone has -
We peer with every major content network. Most have open peering
policies that require little to get a peering relationship. Some
require specific amounts of traffic and/or multiple geographically
diverse connections.
Before you get your hopes up though I will warn you that connecting to
p
t;
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: "WISPA Gen
On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> *nods* I've looked at the Any2 Exchange here in Chicago.
> Unfortunately
> they only have like 3 participants.
>
> Despite their lower participant numbers, I'm looking to join non-
> Equinix
> exchanges here in Chicago (Any2 and ChicagoIX).
8, at 6:36 AM, George Rogato wrote:
> Matt, how much is your bandwidth, say 100megs, in the Pittock?
>
> George
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>> *nods* I've looked at the Any2 Exchange here in Chicago.
>&
Check and see if you are running PVST, which runs spanning tree on
each VLAN.
-Matt
On Dec 9, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Ok... found the original problem... a few switches did not have the
> vlan
> setup in the vlan database. So the VLAN is up and working now... but
> the
>
Just be careful if they want to do there own VLANs. If they do you
will need to dot1q tunnel them. Cisco has made it easy in that all you
have to do in addition to what you do now with a single VLAN is add
the switchport dot1q tunnel command to their interface on either side.
The VLAN stack
ireless Broadband Corp.
> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisc
VLAN150 still shows "forwarding"... and creates a loop on VLAN150.
> Where do I start? I'm not sure what to even look for or how to
> troubleshoot this?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> Check and see if you are running PVST, which r
A diagram would really help.
-Matt
On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am still having a slight issue with a new setup of a Cisco VLAN.
> Here
> is how things are now:
>
> We have about 60 Cisco switches (3500 series) all connected together
> (one after another) in
go...
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> A diagram would really help.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am still having a slight issue w
not sure how I could even check
> from switch to switch? Each switch is in a different customer
> location all over town, and would require one of my techs to go from
> location to location and plugging in and seeing if they can get out?
> Is there some other way to "check
I am looking for WISPs who can provide service in the following
locations:
Raleigh, NC 27606
Raleigh, NC 27612
Cary, NC 27519
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Mount Juliet, TN 37122
Franklin, TN 37067
Our customer is requesting a dedicated 3Mbps symmetrical service. We
plan on delivering a wired T1 to
Resellers play an important role in the overall ecosystem. However, as
an industry we would be far better off if we bought from each other
than from our competition. I believe that had CLECs worked with each
other as opposed to trying to steal each other customers they might
have made a den
These are not isolated incidents and affect many other companies even
if it doesn't force them to shut down. Nevertheless, I predict we are
going to see a number of companies with VoIP/LD exposure to go out of
business this year. Both Qwest and Global Crossing have raised rates
~30% yet man
These are not isolated incidents and affect many other companies even
if it doesn't force them to shut down. Nevertheless, I predict we are
going to see a number of companies with VoIP/LD exposure to go out of
business this year. Both Qwest and Global Crossing have raised rates
~30% yet man
On Jan 1, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> If you port your number over, and that company goes out of business,
> you have a mess. :(
>
That is not true. All regulated telecommunication companies are
required to let your number port out except for a few specific
reasons. What is mo
If you are a leasing company why bother to extend leases to unknown
entities when your current customers are already profitable and
continue to expand their relationship? If I was the leasing company
that Travis used I would be much more interested in providing another
100k to Travis than 5
We (the WISP industry) like to talk about ARPU a lot, but different
organizations define ARPU differently. So, my question is what do you
think the definition of ARPU should be?
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today
een adding up all your gross revenues from
> the
> customers and dividing by the number of customers. I had never heard
> of
> anything different. What are you hearing?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> We (the WISP industry) like to talk about ARPU a
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
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
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 wa
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
> 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
>
>
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 mortg
; 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
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 bes
; -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-neu
rds,
>
> 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: F
pened_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.o
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
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 att
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 impresse
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 smarte
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 be
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 th
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 m
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
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 a
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
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; possi
On Jan 19, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Charles Wu (CTI) wrote:
> 3. No -- while you *could* do PtMP -- problem is antenna beamwidth
> requirements (and interference protection minimums)
>
Use the side lobes Luke.
-Matt
W
These are not officially available yet. Hence the lack of information.
I have a pair at our office for testing if anyone wants to swing by.
Unfortunately, I can't share any results at this point.
-Matt
On Jan 23, 2009, at 8:12 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
> Does anyone have the spec sheet? I se
Trango has a way of destroying their reputation even when their
product is not at fault. We've had them offer us volume discounts only
later to see the same price offered without a volume requirement as
part of a promotion. I can't get a modern firmware for our older 5010s
that operate in 5
On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:02 PM, John Seaman wrote:
> Matt, there is no DFS detector in the Atlas5010. It was not a firmware
> issue, but rather a hardware limitation. That is why we released the
> 5055, aka the TrangoLINK-45 which is essentially the same product as
> the
> Atlas but has DFS supp
On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> And, CTI has published their exact pricing for the Trango. Why is
> nobody else putting out the DW price?
>
I don't know, but our last quote from CTI had the DW coming in less
than Trango.
-Matt
-
Where can I obtain broadband underserved data?
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wire
h the form 477
> database would
> work nicely for that.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:10 PM
>
ge.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html
>
> Rick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.w
essage-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] make sure
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> So if your BGP upstream is using a old firmware and passed you this
> bogus
> path data your BGP session with them would flap.
>
That is not correct. Older firmwares were dropping sessions because of
this. Regardless, the route in question
http://www.rapidlink.com/images/dallas.png
-Matt
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Kilton wrote:
> I was down visiting some relatives in Irving, TX and noticed a few
> Trango units kicking around, anyone covering that area, just curios to
> who it is.
>
> Cameron
> Midcoast Internet
>
>
>
> -
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> I can't believe that NO ONE here has any input on this at all. Did
> my last
> post fail to make it through? Or should we not give any input into
> the
> process if given the chance? We'll just let the telco's get all of
> it then?
We've been using the AN80 3.65 PtP with great success.
-Matt
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
> Anyone using 3.65 for ptp? What is available? Can ubiquiti's
> cards be
> used in mikrotik?
>
> brian
>
>
> ---
There is also have a difference between accepted interpretations and
trying to argue new interpretations. I would say you an attorney if
you want to push through a new interpretation. While it may be
supported in current law, unless there is a precedent then you are
going to have to argue f
Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was
worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax
or AN80 has worked perfect.
-Matt
On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
> Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed
per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to
complain.
-Matt
On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however.
>
> In one thread in one lis
Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ------
> From: "Matt Liotta"
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
>
>> We are seeing
On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
> However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many
> situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax
> base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver
> NLOS performance similar to or be
I think you may be missing a couple of variables in the multivariable
equation that determines the actual throughput a client can achieve in
a given time slice. When comparing access systems one must understand
the differences between the capabilities provided by the systems and
their resul
delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was
>> worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax
>> or AN80 has worked perfect.
>>
>
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> 2 megs is yesterday's news.
>
> U-Verse is 18/1.5
> FiOS is 50/20
> Charter has 60/5
> Comcast has 50/10
>
> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than
> that.
>
> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years be
Might want to get a license for that.
-Matt
On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards)
> feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18
> miles.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
> Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment
> being poured
> into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth
> model and
> asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to
> r
You want a pseudowire appliance that creates a T1 across an Ethernet
link. Rad, Telco, and Dragonwave all make good products at reasonable
prices. I have some extra ones if you want a deal.
-Matt
On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
> I have a customer who wants to use our towers
Except of course that isn't professional. And, while I have many times
wanted to complain about some other WISP in public I won't because it
isn't professional. What would have been better for Bob in the first
place and for the rest of us always; would be simply for each other to
treat thei
Mike Tataris
Specialized Account Manager - WSG
Phone: 404-649-1521
Cell: 678-478-9132
Fax: 800-329-6882
Email: mike.tata...@sprint.com
On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Does anyone have a contact at Sprint wholesale.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with
the gear tend to avoid posting to threads about WiMAX because the
threads quickly devolve. I suggest you read the archives of this
mailing list. To summarize though; operators who use WiMAX like it and
think the technology
gt;
> I'm asking for vendor recommendations and WISP experiences from people
> that have actually deployed Wimax in the 3650Mhz space. The area I'm
> looking to serve wouldn't be cost effective to serve via Wifi.
>
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Those of us operators
On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:17 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
> Matt,
>
> How does what you say in the first paragraph make Aperto not viable?
>
I don't think anything from my first paragraph makes Aperto not
viable. I am not sure I even like the term viable. I wouldn't suggest
Aperto or recommend them a
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. Howeve
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 acutall
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
>> repo
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 busin
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 bu
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. Ch
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 destro
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 wel
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 f
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
> aga
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
[~]# 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%
[=
=
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 ha
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 pleas
401 - 500 of 783 matches
Mail list logo
