Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Canopy will run with 3db of signal to noise separation, which is more robust than 802.11b For signal levels typically found in deployed equipment this is not true, nor has it ever been true. The Canopy 3dB C/I is measured at stronger signal than typical deployment (unless all your SMs have 20dB or more excess signal). Canopy C/I is pretty much the same as all other technologies I'm aware of at anywhere from typical to minimum signal levels. This of course omits the high constellation modulations which we all know requires significantly higher C/I. Rich - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP As a former Canopy user, I would like to point out a couple of issues not mentioned here. 1) Canopy is limited to vertical polarity in PTMP deployments. Trango and many other systems can be deployed in horizontal polarity, pretty much avoiding any Canopy in the area. 2) Canopy systems will be more robust in comparison to other systems deployed at the same antenna gain and polarity, and they will also coexist nicely with other Canopy systems if they are all running GPS sync on the access points. HOWEVER, non-synced Canopy causes other Canopy systems all kinds of problems, and other types of systems will take a Canopy system down if the other system has higher gain and runs on the same path. Canopy will run with 3db of signal to noise separation, which is more robust than 802.11b for example which needs 5-6db - but that doesn't make it immune to noise. There are situations where the poor antenna design of the Canopy ends up getting more noise and will run worse than a better engineered 802.11b system. It is easy to build a 2000lb elephant (legally, I will add) that will kick the 500lb gorilla's butt. Been there, done that. I'm glad I don't have to deal with Canopy any more. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forrest W Christian wrote: Richard Goodin wrote: I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin delivery of bandwidth to customers. Since Canopy hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll mention it. You really can't go wrong with a canopy installation. It works, even in the presence of noise that would kill other systems. We swapped a dying (due to interference) Trango system with a canopy system well over a year ago and haven't looked back. As customers on our existing 802.11b network have problems we just swap them to Canopy. Some here will probably mention canopy's abusive spectrum use. Yes, Motorola uses a very agressive modulation which both provides for incredible interference robustness, but unfortunately doesn't play very well with others. Systems with marginal link budget will fail when put in the presence of a motorola radio. I have heard this referred to as the 500 pound gorilla approach - I.E. where does a 500 pound gorilla set? Anywhere he wants to. I find it hard to see this as a disavantage to the Canopy operator. After all this is business, and you need to make decisions which improve your bottom line. One more thing... you need to be very careful about FCC certification of systems. Many of the systems which people put together themselves are not legal in the eyes of the FCC. In short, buying a radio from vendor A and pairing it with an antenna from vendor B may or may not be legal, even if the EIRP limit is not exceeded. Plus, you will have vendors (distributors mostly) which will lie to you about whether or not a given pair is legal. Currently many WISP's are doing things which are definitely not legal under the rules, and count on the FCC's continued non-enforcement of the part-15 bands as part of their business plan. As being an Amateur Radio operator and seeing what happens when the FCC decides to actually pursue enforcement in a band, I wouldn't want to tie my continued business survival to illegal equipment. -forrest -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
was) is even worse. The USA isn't quickly adapting broadband for several reasons. One is that the consumer just doesn't value it enough. If broadband was available at $75 per connection instead of $30 there would be much more of it out there. But people aren't willing (in large enough numbers) to pay more for broadband than for dialup or no internet at all. In other countries they've typically had comparatively substandard networks. They are now building to catch up and naturally that building is with the latest gear. Here we have cheap access to phones, cell phones, TV, etc. That's not always the case elsewhere. It's funny. I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband would help me sell more of it. People would use it at work and want it at home too right? Wrong. They just do all of their stuff at work and sometimes cancel even the dialup! Market forces are best left alone. But steps do need to be taken to make sure that the playing field is level and that practical considerations (like roi) are not totally ignored. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically American problem. In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies competing with each other. Only here in America does the FCC license any technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to those it). Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM). For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at minimum one that required all equipment to play nice. Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment increases, it gets harder. Right. Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. But all new bands should require compatability rules. I just don't see our FCC seeing things this way. There are too many that believe a free-for-all in the market serves the public best. I don't agree. Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Steve, In theory, I fully agree with your view. The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.) The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment increases, it gets harder. The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos and Cable companies. And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less competitive as an industry in the end. This can not be a good thing for an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick: I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are less robust, oh well. But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services based
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said. I can only add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive requirements in the wisp market than anything that fits the transmit mask. It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a good example for an equipment life standards discussion. hehehehehe It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to let the market decide between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular (first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it (whether most people know it or not). It was the blanket assertion that No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected out-of-hand. US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly. I think you meant carriers or providers in the above. Where GSM rules apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world for the customers. Since wisps business as service providing is mostly fixed, I'll grant you that seamless is not a meaningful advantage. But consider this. As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM equipment are interchangable. From a service provider perspective you can get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers). From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they build in higher volume. From a manufacturer perspective I know this inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on manufacturing cost (and thus selling price). Equipment manufacturers providers who build deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. So let's try this again: US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly. If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly! We'll see. That's what the FCC just did with 3650. Agreed. I'm hopeful that this was a good move. And lets be real here eh? No matter how good something we do is, much of Europe will do it differently just because we did it first. Not quite the point. I don't care what Europe does either. More countries on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here cost us). THAT was my point. Look at the manufacturers that you buy your wisp equipment from. They are charging you for equipment that they can only build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US FCC wireless rules (not too many). Imagine how much less it might cost you if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets. As for having ALL devices be wifi? No thanks! There are good things coming out of the proprietary market. I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi. Consider this example: One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar. This is what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they all support TPC DFS. Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for some time already? A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make everybody's life a whole lot better. This is what I suggested under the term middle ground ... in your terms somewhere costructively between Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it. What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was the availability. Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary). VHS was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of companies who all agreed to support a common design. VHS won precisely because of the standard (the availability as you put it). When Sony came out with their next format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) position. Japanese learned fast. World 3rd generation cellular standards are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues). Technically? Maybe Beta
Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be? You got it. In a democracy full of special interests, who decides? It depends on the charter of who is organizing the standard and who the participants are. The 802.11 standard comes courtesy of ieee. I don't know their rules. Our Internet standards come from the IETF which is a democracy of volunteer technical individuals, companies and governments have little to no influence (this is good). Consortia and industry organizations in the US (like TIA) tend to give over-consideration to manufacturer participants ... those that build the equipment. I'd bet the WiMAX forum is in this category, where it likely only really represents the manufacturers and a collection of dominant carriers who have chosen to participate. These are exactly the reasons some Industry associations of USERS host their own standard setting groups (like APCO and I believe CTIA) where basically they're issueing a statement of what they want Manufacturers to build. Of course manufacturers participate, trying to steer the outcome to what they want to build, but users org standards groups tend to (by their own rules) give greater voice to volunteer users that choose to participate. I've participated in innumerable standard setting groups, for manufacturer organizations and user organizations. Chaired many of the groups, too. Fascinating when a group of participants attempt to come to a concensus on anything. The output is only as important as the unity of voice with which the organization speaks (for example, few public safety agencies in this country choose to purchase and deploy any wireless system that does not have APCO's seal of compliance to APCO user issued standards). In their market APCO speaks for the buying power of the public safety users (as I believe does CTIA). Democracy, got'ta love it hate it at the same time. Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update You bring up an interesting point, comparing to GSM.. The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be? One of the Reasons WiMax still is not deployed, while non-standards product are flourishing. Is it better to get it done, or get it done right but while trying end up never getting it done? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards
I use PayPal and am very happy. I originally used PayPal and was forced to switch to a merchant e-account. Too many orders from countries where PayPal didn't serve. Oh and by the way people do not have to be PayPal members to post payments. Too many orders lost from customers that don't have PayPal accounts (unless things changed in the last 2 years since I switched to e-account, but way back you had to setup a PayPal account to make a purchase). Too many orders lost from customers that refused to use PayPal. Too much time spent providing customers with bank transfer info that couldn't or wouldn't use PayPal. It was a wonderful relief the moment I left PayPal behind and had direct credit card clearing from mastercard or visa. Vendor recommendations? I'll admit I didn't shop independently. Our hosting service provided e-commerce with MIVA Merchant, and enabled credit card clearing with LinkPoint CSI. Works great. Rich - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards I do not have a terminal and do not need to swipe cards from here. Their rates for non-eBay items seem to be in line with others. I have full control over my account and even have a Master Card debit card from them. Simple and painless and I don't have to maintain any secure web sites to accept payment. Your needs may be different. Oh and by the way people do not have to be PayPal members to post payments. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:40 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards Can anybody suggest any good vendors for a merchant account and card processing terminal? Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 05/30/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards
Looks like they've definitely made some major improvements since I used them for my online store long ago. What about the supported countries? I was always getting emails from customers from African countries I'd never even heard of that couldn't place their orders thru paypals. cheers, Rich - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards On Wed, 31 May 2006, Rich Comroe wrote: Too many orders lost from customers that don't have PayPal accounts (unless things changed in the last 2 years since I switched to e-account, but way back you had to setup a PayPal account to make a purchase). Paypal has a terminal available that allows you to process MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express. I believe those are all included in their terminal (haven't needed the Discover or AE, yet). It will handle debit and credit cards. Rates are very reasonable for what I personally use it for. I don't do a lot of credit card processing, either. Too many orders lost from customers that refused to use PayPal. Too much time spent providing customers with bank transfer info that couldn't or wouldn't use PayPal. The customer never knows it was processed through PayPal. I take the card number and other information (via the virtual terminal), and it is processed. It shows up on your credit card bill as a purchase from Butch Evans Consulting. Unless I tell you, you'd never know that's who I used. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros 5213 PCI Card Keeps Breaking
Couldn't say for sure, but I have a suspicion - static discharge in the antenna. Worked on Canopy at Motorola. At one time they used an antenna coupling circuit that was highly static sensitive (at the antenna). They reworked the antenna couplingto make it less succeptible. If these cards are not explicitly designed for outdoor use then I'd suspect this. When the antenna coupler pops you get a high insertion loss to the antenna (power going in or out suffers). This seems to fit your symptoms. I'm not a ham, and don't have any suggestions on how to reduce the potential for static discharge in the antenna to pop an antenna coupler on the board.But I'd check ifthe antenna mount is grounded to the same ground as the radio board. Rich - Original Message - From: Kelly Shaw To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:56 PM Subject: [WISPA] Atheros 5213 PCI Card Keeps Breaking I'm running a StarOS Wrap Combo with an Atheros 5213 PCI card at one of my POPs. When the slightest thunderstorm comes through, I lose this card. For some reason or another it's output drops severely and only my closest clients can connect. I go from a -65 signal to -85+ on my closest client. My tower has never had a direct hit through all of this. The WRAP board appears to be working just fine and I can access the STAROS program just fine. A replacement of the radio card brings things back to normal. I have a surge suppressor in-line with only 10 feet of LMR-400 to my antenna. Could my problem be that my ground is shoddy? I've been through 4 of these cards in the past year because of this and can't figure it out. Once these storms go through tonight, I am thinking about filing down my ground connection to the tower to ensure a better contact surface. Kelly Shaw Pure Internet, Inc. www.pure.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will
Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment
My appologies to the list. I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago. Wierd, but my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if they were new. I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned that mail back on May 26th. Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week old. Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. Has this ever happened to anyone else? With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again! :-) My mistake. Rich - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with like technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
Nah. It's just a phone. Ordinary wired phones already offer more features than people want without VoIP. Ordinary phone service typically offers you a list of 25 features. People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature list for free. Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're just nuisances. There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether you want 'em or not. For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone plain local / long distance talk-time. The phone companies learned to accept this. The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old). Not one advanced ISDN feature EVER became popular with consumers. Within the telecom industry ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite). Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a telephone replacement service when it comes to VoIP. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS
It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local US long distance available for $60 ... something / month. I do. To save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't. Level that (which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly. I'm not seeing the savings. In what region of the US are ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US). Is $60/mo unmetered local long distance not available? Rich - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to voip. They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month on long distance with our VoIP service. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about dial-tone. We've reached agreement! I agree completely. I missed where your comments were defined towards business customers. Wisps that I work with serve predominantly residential customers, which was my 2 cents. I know some of the wisps here target business markets. Nothing wrong with that, and IMO it's a more profitable market to serve, too. BTW, most all of the same features you cite have been available with ISDN for years before VoIP without gaining any traction with business customers whatsoever. Tried ISDN myself for a few years. Like everything else, I wanted to have my own hands-on experience with it ... and then dropped it after a few years going back to analog POTS! Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone I beg to differ... Find-me/follow-me, Outlook Integration, Billing Platform Integration, video phone, do not disturb, call logs, distributed call centers, IVR, and the list goes on VoIP is actually more than a phone. But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about dial-tone. From experience, Caller ID, Call Forward and Voicemail are the most popular features, especially with so many SOHO. - Peter Rich Comroe wrote: Nah. It's just a phone. Ordinary wired phones already offer more features than people want without VoIP. Ordinary phone service typically offers you a list of 25 features. People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature list for free. Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're just nuisances. There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether you want 'em or not. For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone plain local / long distance talk-time. The phone companies learned to accept this. The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old). Not one advanced ISDN feature EVER became popular with consumers. Within the telecom industry ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite). Rich -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great. I love it, and use it myself. Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call just has an ordinary phone). Ya'never'know. But I wouldn't wager any money that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads. Just my opinion. On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again ... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. Didn't really interest me. But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one particular desk). Problem is with most residential and most small business is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere). Again, just my opinion. I don't see any VoIP killer-apps. It's just a phone that is at the moment offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required to charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are required to charge (at the moment). Rich - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Rich In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video. Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the features one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play but it's a step in the right direction. Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as a feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines when setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have one phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup on standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features and save $$ at the same time :) Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Nah. It's just a phone. Ordinary wired phones already offer more features than people want without VoIP. Ordinary phone service typically offers you a list of 25 features. People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature list for free. Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're just nuisances. There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether you want 'em or not. For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone plain local / long distance talk-time. The phone companies learned to accept this. The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old). Not one advanced ISDN feature EVER became popular with consumers. Within the telecom industry ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite). Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a telephone replacement service
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
grinIt Still Doesn't Work would be ISDW!/grin Got a chuckle out of your reply but I get your meaning. Asked the question, What is ISDN, the answer you're thinking of is I Still Don't Know. I'm sure that's the one you were thinking of. Got'ta love ISDN. I actually tried it for awhile. In my near-Chicago suburb I ordered it, the phone company tried for 10 weeks to make it work (unsuccessfully) because the local office and technicians obviously had no experience with it whatsoever (secret meaning: I was the first in my area to have ever ordered ISDN service!). Ultimately I had to debug the service myself (and then tell the phone company how to fix it). It was pretty depressing to go through the exercise ... no wonder the phone company couldn't sell ISDN service. Then there was the incident when an A band destination that I maintained a constant connection to had an equipment failure and kept disconnecting, while my equipment kept reconnecting. Unmetered still had a $0.03 (3 cent) connection charge, and my next months bill was $800!!! Got a MUD report and it listed roughly 30,000 connections! The other party kicked in to cover half of my phone bill since it was their equipment failure which caused the problem. ISDN ... got'ta love it ... not! Rich - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN). Travis Microserv Rich Comroe wrote: Nah. It's just a phone. Ordinary wired phones already offer more features than people want without VoIP. Ordinary phone service typically offers you a list of 25 features. People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature list for free. Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're just nuisances. There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether you want 'em or not. For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone plain local / long distance talk-time. The phone companies learned to accept this. The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old). Not one advanced ISDN feature EVER became popular with consumers. Within the telecom industry ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite). Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a telephone replacement service when it comes to VoIP. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
That was my experience exactly! Finally used my own protocol analyzer (my PC) and saw each Q931 request being auto-repeated before the first D channel acks came back (there was nearly a SECOND of D channel delay!!). At that point it was obvious and I had the phone technicians switch me from a supposedly ISDN capable brand new fiber line unit to an old SLIC96 they had available and the problem immediately went away (and my phone started working). Ahhh, the good old days... You're right ... the phone company tech's had no idea how to make it work (or trouble shoot their own equipment). Worse yet, the Ameritech technicians had been issued ISDN capable CAT box's that were oblivious to D channel delay (so they were swearing it was working because their test box said it was working). Rich - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Thats because ISDN really stands for I Still Don't No... Back in the 80's when Bellsouth introduced it in Nashville, the techs had to make repeated stops at my house to finally get it going. Probably 20 of them. Bellsouth introduced it, without bothering to show their employees how to make it work. Still, it was lots better than 2400 baud to access FIDONET - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN). Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
why do you do it? I'm a top poster. I hate having to essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments (especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible). I know it's a religious preference / argument and there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to know"why", so ... peace Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality You guys that post using this incredibly annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c onversational email impossible... Read on below. comments are prefaced with North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO WIRES!- - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. I don't see the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE! How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud? How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting access to content. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. I seriously doubt that. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only ones that have "access" to everything on the internet.- Larry
Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
Very cool. I love gadgets too ... got'ta play with them all. Rich, I don't agree. But I've no idea what I said that you disagree with. What I said was I don't see VoIP providing advanced services that the consumer marketplace as a whole is going to pick-up (for example, the way caller-id has ... everybody has it now). What I believe the consumer marketplace wants is talk minutes (disagreeing with the post that started this thread ... which says VoIP is incorrectly competing as cheap minutes, while what they should be selling is advanced features). Tony replied: what about IP video-conferencing or multiple numbers. In the email you're disagreeing with I said: come on ... the general consumer isn't going to go for these in a big way. Is this what you're disagreeing with, because you use these features? I have a constant debate over how bright or technically savvy the average consumer is. There's a lot of bright people. But never make the mistake of presuming the people you deal with on the cutting-edge of broadband are representative of the general marketplace. It ain't so. It ain't even close. The fact that you use these advanced features is great. I bet a lot of people on this list do. I do. But a lot of the people on the list (especially those that work with residential consumers) can speak volumes from their experience. And (I might add) I bet those that subscribe to wireless broadband may be closer to the cutting-edge than to the general population. (scarey). Virtually everybody's got a phone. Rich - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Rich, I don't agree. My Lingo service is $20 a line, unlimited calling to Europe-US-Canada, and I use simultaneous ring to cell when I'm away, I use voicemail-to-Email (instantaneous) when I'm at the office or away, and use quite a few other features. My ATT line was 3 times that and no Europe (when you finally get the bill with universal sevice fees, taxes, etc.). I put my second line on Lingo...it's seldom used and pay $15 for 500 minutes which is rarely approached by even 1/2. It's hard to beat. And, I can take my tiny box to Budapest and have my home phone in the Kempinski hotel room. But, I don't have to because of simultaneous ring to my Skype-in number. Maybe it's just the fun of somebody who grew up before the Carterphone decision. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great. I love it, and use it myself. Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call just has an ordinary phone). Ya'never'know. But I wouldn't wager any money that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads. Just my opinion. On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again ... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. Didn't really interest me. But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one particular desk). Problem is with most residential and most small business is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere). Again, just my opinion. I don't see any VoIP killer-apps. It's just a phone that is at the moment offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required to charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are required to charge (at the moment). Rich - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone Rich In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video. Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the features one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play but it's a step in the right direction. Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as a feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines when setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have one phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup on standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features
Re: [WISPA] Network Storm
Tim Kerns wrote: The last time this happened to me 90% of my network was bridged. Now I am 90% routed and have not seen the problem Very true, as long as you're not using Motorola Canopy. We also used routing to break up the broadcast domains. Problem using Motorola Canopy is that an AP Site with up to6APs are bridged within the Motorola site equipment (CMM)and we continued having storms within a site (between multiple offending customer CPE served from the same site) even after adding a router at each site. With non-Motorola APs you can do a better job andblock CPE-CPE traffic within the same AP and independently feed each AP from a site router. Rich - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Storm Ron, Are you seeing icmp to other IP's that are unreachable along with the icmp to 0.0.0.0 ? I have seen this in the past and looked like it was coming from a linksys router. I suspected the router was randomly replying to other's IP's, basically causing loops.To isolate I had to disable different AP's to discover which AP it was originating from, then acl each client until I could isolate to a client, long process in between network hangs. The last time this happened to me 90% of my network was bridged. Now I am 90% routed and have not seen the problem Tim - Original Message - From: Ron Wallace To: WISPA General List ; William.L. Edwards Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Storm Thanks Bill. -Original Message-From: William.L. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:26 AMTo: ''WISPA General List'', [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [WISPA] Network Storm It is probably peer to peer traffic. That can take a network down very quickly. You will have to hunt down which user is hammering your network. Probably BitTorrent traffic if I were guessing. W.L. EdwardsCEORNet CommunicationsOffice 765-342-3554Fax 765-349-4880IMPORTANT: Confidentiality Statement:This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may containinformation that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not theintended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please erase all copies ofthe message and its attachments and notify RNet Communications immediately -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron WallaceSent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:16 AMTo: wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WISPA] Network Storm To all, I am having a network storm, the first. All activity light switches on the wireless net are flashing like crazy, both at the data center and customer sites, may not mean much, but it has not happened before. There is a huge amount of traffic on the canopy sys. Others have discussed an ICMP storm w/ a (0.0.0.0) address that comes from Linksys Netgear routers. There are about 20 on my net, of 90 users. I am aknow-nothing at this, and really a hardware/RF guy. Not familiar with Ethereal or other SW that monitors the net. What are you all using? Where do I get it? What are your thoughts and advice? Any help or advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated. I'll do whatever you all advise. Ron Wallace Tigernet Phone: 517-547-8410 Mobile: 517-605-4542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 7/18/2006 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 7/18/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Amen. Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to serve the public. This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good). Why can't our government understand this? European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it). The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue. But that's just me. Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine! marlon - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3 Thank you. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 efax 530-323-7025 http://4isps.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Way back in the time known as BC ... (that's Before Cellular), the FCC authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage licenses. An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC actually issued the licenses for a fee. The terms of the license required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date. It was (IMHO) rational, and served the market of radio users. Doesn't sound that far off from what Matt describes. Cellular changed all that. In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of applications for a limited number of licenses. Cellular design dictated that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at will within the served area. But it was made clear that all licensed systems would have to follow the standard (AMPS) and be interoperable. They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out of it). Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever technology they wanted! Interoperability in the interest of the nation's good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be extracted in return for licenses. Consumer service (coverage) for digital cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership (adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their technology). All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept). Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum gets returned. Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either. What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the form of rebates at time quotas are met. The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be jsut as valuable. For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to consumer well being. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model winning. -Matt Rich Comroe wrote: Amen. Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to serve the public. This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good). Why can't our government understand this? European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it). The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue. But that's just me. Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA
Re: [WISPA] ot? New pc card slot in laptop
We got one of the Hawking Hi-Gain USB Wireless-G Dish Adapter just today. Has a 5-led signal strength display. Great fun. It's dish antenna is built-in but they may have one with an external antenna connection too. Rich - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot? New pc card slot in laptop Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: It also has no PCMCIA slot! It's got a slot that's the right size but the connections inside the slot are all wrong. That's probably an ExpressCard slot. Welcome to the bleeding edge. :) I need to find an external wireless card that I can hook a cable to and get actual dB data from various antennas. I'm not sure such a creature exists yet. I suspect most laptops that have the new ExpressCard slot also have built-in wireless, so there isn't a perceived market for it. Anyone have any idea what this is and/or what I can do to make this work? Well, if you're so inclined, chances are the laptop has a mini-PCI slot (if you've got onboard wireless, it definitely does). In theory, you could drill a little teensy hole in the mini-PCI slot cover, and run a pigtail out from the onboard wireless card to an external antenna. It'd look awfully ghetto but it'd probably work. (Disclaimer: This is a crazy idea. David Smith, his boss, and MVN take no responsibility for this. Void where prohibited. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] BST Wireless Deployed in 10 cities
Isn't it the WiMAX mobility opportunity? Wasn't the original 802.16 specs completely rewritten to add the opportunity for mobility? Rich - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] BST Wireless Deployed in 10 cities This may be a bit silly since I'm only a wireless guy (don't do DSL or anything else). But if you are the telco, why would you want to go wireless? I would think it would be cheaper and more reliable to provide internet over the wire you already have strung to the customers house... Anyone who knows better care to enlighten me? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: BellSouth Expands pre-WiMAX Service to 2 More Markets http://www.convergedigest.com/Wireless/broadbandwirelessarticle.asp?ID=19588 BellSouth announced the expansion of its pre-WiMAX broadband wireless into two new markets by late October -- select parts of Albany, Georgia and Paducah, Kentucky. Additionally, service will be expanded in the New Orleans area to include New Orleans East. With these expansions, BellSouth will offer the service in 10 Southeastern markets, including four markets recently launched in September: North Charleston, S.C.; Melbourne, Fla.; Greenville, Miss.; and Chattanooga, Tenn. BellSouth Wireless Broadband Service offers downstream speeds up to 1.5Mbps using its licensed WCS 2.3GHz spectrum. http://www.bellsouth.net/wirelessbb 05-Oct-06 Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 efax 530-323-7025 http://4isps.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
I don't know what the beef is. FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100 trunking SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago. They claimed to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical 100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology. 100 channels at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users. With the iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same geographic area with the same spectrum. So much for the unneeded technology assessment. Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology targeted to this band that I know of. Now that they're merged with Sprint, it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX). Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I am not familiar with the terms you describe below and I am a bit confused. Can you break this down with a little more detail and explanation? I would like to understand this as I think it is very important for us to know what they are trying to do here in 900 MHz. Thank you, John Scrivner rwf wrote: Nextel has been buying up 900 MHz trunked systems for years now. Probably will do what they did to build their first ESMR (Nextel IDEN)- Take perfectly good systems off the air so they can drive the users to an unneeded tcchnology. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I think this is definately something we need the answer to (What part of 900Mhz). What exactly is Green Space? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27618 They don't say exact freq's except for the reference to unlicensed... R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile 806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the 902-906 trunking band. So I believe whatever '900' channels they have are *below* the 900 ISM band. I am most likely off on the numeric band limits. But there are IIRC 15MHz of 25KHz channels that they hold licenses among at 800 (and the separate reverse channels 45MHz higher), and only 4MHz of 12.5KHz channels at 900 (including both TR, but I don't recall the T/R split there). Rich - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Before everyone gets in an uproar about this, has anyone looked in to the actual frequencies being used? I'm pretty sure Nextel has some licensed 900 MHz spectrum. I don't have time to dig around for the information but as I recall they do. I could be wrong. They certainly won't deploy an IDEN system in the unlicensed bandsCome on. They might however cause interference with unlicensed stuff in certain situations where you might be co-located on the same sites. From what I have read I think this is only going to be in selected East Coast cities anyway, and it's a band aid approach to the rebanding process. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I am not familiar with the terms you describe below and I am a bit confused. Can you break this down with a little more detail and explanation? I would like to understand this as I think it is very important for us to know what they are trying to do here in 900 MHz. Thank you, John Scrivner rwf wrote: Nextel has been buying up 900 MHz trunked systems for years now. Probably will do what they did to build their first ESMR (Nextel IDEN)- Take perfectly good systems off the air so they can drive the users to an unneeded tcchnology. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I think this is definately something we need the answer to (What part of 900Mhz). What exactly is Green Space? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27618 They don't say exact freq's except for the reference to unlicensed... R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
I'd originally written: The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile 806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the 902-906 trunking band. ... I am most likely off on the numeric band I sure was [numerically off - that is]. What's known as the '900' trunking band runs from 896-902. I was only correct that it is *below* the 900 ISM band, and that it is only 12.5kHz channelized. rwf wrote: Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in the technology (hint- Patents). Concerned that I might be some company shill? No need. I'd be happy to provide full disclosure. I left Moto about 4 yrs ago. I did some of the original work on Motorola's FCC comments to FleetCall's waiver request back in 92, but never worked in iDEN development. None of my patents are specific to iDEN technology, but I'd be flattered if you had looked them up. I've no vested interest in any of them anyway (all patents rights while employed at Moto are assigned to Moto, not the inventors). I've no vested interest in NexTel. As close as I get is my neighbor is a NexTel employee in sales ... does that count? Personally, I never liked or used NexTel service based on poor coverage / quality where I needed service. Hey, terms like '800' MHz, '900' MHz are *not one allocation*. Being from the radio manufacturing industry I'm acutely aware of how many different allocations are within these ranges. That's all, I just trying to be helpful in pointing out where the NexTel 900 trunking you mentioned is in relation to 900 MHz unlicensed ISM. And that I know that the iDEN served orders or magnitude more customers for NexTel than the original SMR license holders ever had, as FleetCall's original petition for waiver had correctly claimed. And that it's public knowledge where NexTel's new developments are targeted to other bands in conjunction with Sprint. chill, Rich - Original Message - From: rwf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:24 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Rich- Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in the technology (hint- Patents). -Original Message- Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I don't know what the beef is. FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100 trunking SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago. They claimed to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical 100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology. 100 channels at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users. With the iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same geographic area with the same spectrum. So much for the unneeded technology assessment. Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology targeted to this band that I know of. Now that they're merged with Sprint, it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX). Rich -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events and not found found them elevated? We found the most crippling network events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs). They act similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated latency due to the short term load they place over the rf). Rich - Original Message - From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that. Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time, and never more than about fifteen minutes. The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our spectrum-fu is not that strong. David Smith MVN.net David, We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours. Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times there is no loss at all. Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower. We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic. In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out what this issue is. -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
Eric wrote: Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening. On our network 200 broadcasts per second is pretty typical. When we see it spike to over 1200 per second (6-fold rise), it really drives the latency up. Don't be fooled by total bw metrics ... broadcasts are so short that crippling broadcast storms don't show any spike in total traffic (traffic is actually squeezed out by the broadcasts dominating the radios). I'm thinking tcpdump is like the packet dump that ethereal uses. How do you determine how many broadcasts per second is transiting the AP from it? Just curious. I'm not familiar with beacon realtime manager ... can it tell you how many broadcasts per second are on the air during your events? When you say you've never seen an unreasonable # of broadcasts, how many broadcasts per second do you see during an event? What we do is simply chart broadcasts in out for every radio on our network on a continuous basis. Just about anything will do that, so knowing broadcast levels (and who's causing them) is a piece of cake ... no harder than opening a web page and scrolling to spot the offenders. Rich - Original Message - From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux On 10/27/06, Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events and not found found them elevated? We found the most crippling network events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs). They act similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated latency due to the short term load they place over the rf). Rich We try to mitigate this problem by the following: 1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay 2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the time via iptables 3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how much bandwidth any one customer can consume Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening. -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order. Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? Yeah, that is a valid concern. They're contemplating a lot of outdoor units (like one in every American car). FYI, when I left the activity ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited power, and road-side units of limited height. They're not trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into short-medium--long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short, like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency traffic light control). So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels. However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
John wrote: In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. Got that right (that it's not an option currently). DSRC may be using a wifi variant (narrowed 802.11a), but the DSRC usage is not intended to be the same traffic as consumer wireless internet that wifi typically carries. DSRC has a variety of functions, mostly related to highway traffic for the safety of the public. As such, DSRC traffic requires various priorities, the most stringent demanding lower latency than could be achievable unless the channels are dedicated to DSRC functionality. Unlicensed functions for any purpose are contemplated to take place on UNII channels as they are designated for today, and the DSRC channel access layer for safety functions may be totally different than 802.11 MAC. We were headed that way when I left that committee's work (it was one of the few things that I'd contributed to their effort that stuck) and from my reading of the FCC order, I think it's still that way (discussion of control channels). As such there's a sensitivity of DSRC members that dual-band units not be able to operate using standard 802.11 MAC on the DSRC channels which could put the dedicated DSRC safety functions at risk. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider when adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems being proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to say I am all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. The proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be allowed to use this space for low power vehicle communications. Our attorney, Kris Twomey, told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I could not find anything regarding this that was terribly important to WISPs. If I am wrong then please tell me how I am wrong and why it is important for WISPs to take a stand of any kind in this proceeding and then we will consider it. I promise I have not made my mind up yet on this and I would be glad to take a stand if one is needed. I welcome others feedback. Thanks, Scriv Rick Smith wrote: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926 and above useless. See ... ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Scriv Rick Smith wrote: potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Dawn, Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see something he did not though please forward it along. Thank you, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to. WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in further detail. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that this was desirable to keep usage separate. What can I say? I worked for Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy! I left the activity when the committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC products to that standard. I actually had initial success selling the Moto concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned for Canopy. 802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the common technology to promote lower cost through volume. They were obviously trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours. Many users, however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a bridge. This needs further explaining. For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side units. But it's a chicken and egg situation. If transmitters are there every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC trasceivers for their cars. Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers, one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway transceivers. What comes first? Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered attractive. To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band. Mobile based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated. They contemplate every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 UNII band. But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ... the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels above the UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard. DSRC functions are public safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed. It wouldn't make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels. But it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public will want on their own is much preferred). Hope that makes sense. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110) Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here? What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about commenting to the FCC. Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this was outside our existing bands and you never replied. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Howdy, I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded. John wrote: Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our networks. Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order. Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band: yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes 926
Re: [WISPA] Old News -- but can someone patent a mesh network
The patent you cite was filed Jan 27, 2000. In general, to challenge a patent you'd have to find publicly available description (publication), prior patent, or public offer of the technology for sale pre-dating the patent's filing date. The patent office has already searched prior patents and found none prior to Jan 27 2000.If you can, there's some attorney's that'd very much like to know what you know. But just being familiar with Mesh for the last-almost-7-years doesn't count. Not knowing that some technology may be subject to Intellectual Property Right does not make it free. The most well known case of this is GIF image encoding. This was used freely on the web, literally for years, before the IPR holder chose to begin asserting their claim (it was apparently years before the IPR holder even knew that they actually held IPR!! ... typical big company syndrome IIRC). Rich - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: [WISPA] Old News -- but can someone patent a mesh network http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=9156 Their patent reads as follows US Patent No 6,249,516 B1 WIRELESS NETWORK GATEAWY AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SAME A wireless network system includes a server having a server controller and a server radio modem, and a number of clients each including a client controller and a client radio modem. The server controller implements a server process that includes the receipt and the transmission of data packets via the radio modem. The client controllers of each of the clients implements a client process that includes the receipt and transmission of data packets via the client radio modem. The client process of each of the clients intiates, selects, and maintains a radio transmission path to the server that is either a direct path to the server, or is an indirect path or link to the server through at least one of the remainder of the clients. A method for providing wireless network communication includes providing a server imeplementing a server process including receiving data packets via a radio modem, sending data packets via the server radio modem, communicating with the network, and performing housekeeping functions, and further includes providing a number of clients, each implementing a client process sending and receiving data packets via a client radio modem, maintaining a send/receive data buffer, and selecting a radio transmission path to the server. The radio transmission path or link is either a direct path to the server, or an indirect path to the server through at least one of the remainder of the clients. The process preferably optimizes the link to minimize the number of hops to the server. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me... Thoughts? -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Products that are best effort [snip product name] end up making guys like us look bad. I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed spectrum, regardless of manufacturer? There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a licensed channel can accomplish that? Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce the results we are after then we look at other products. We will not tie our hands to one brand. No reason to. Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on. Yes, CIR is what we sell not MIR. That may be a good thing for us or it may turn out to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to deliver. Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. Expectations and end results are everything to us. We meet expectations or we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation. It's a small town! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Agreed. But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset thing is that can be delivered. CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really needed? And what areas of your business or network also prevent the CIR Full QOS guarantee from being realized? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived My thoughts exactly. If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today. Without those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in RF hostile environments. The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
There's no unlicensed product which guarantees business class services in interference. To suggest product A does and product B doesn't is nonsense. I think you've done a good job of describing why you think some products do a better job of than others. That's fair. Sharing experiences where one product did better than another is fair. I love reading your posts and others comparing the attributes which impact on this. It's educational and I get insights into equipment that I haven't personally had direct experience. But the constant bashing that some product will guarantee business class services in interference and another won't is tiresome, and just turns people off from the good content that people appreciate. Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Certainly you can do committed rate business class services with unlicensed products. WMUX, Terabridge, Trango just to name a few. Are they interchangeable in application? Nope, they require you use the right product for the job at hand. What may work well on one project may not on the next. Interference typically isn't temporary...at least not around these parts! No, you need to engineer the link with enough forethought and available tools on hand to give yourself options in the event a link does begin to incur interference. In our experience the VL was erratic in its ability to consistently produce the same end result day in and day out. Alvarion, me and the third party client all knew before hand the site was very RF unfriendly. I visited the site personally to run surveys before any gear was deployed. We spent the better part of a month with Alvarion trying to get the VL to produce a consistent level of throughput at any level without success. Just as I began to believe we had it licked we would get another call from the client. The really frustrating part of all this is the throughput would vary depending on just how busy the other gear in the area was. The busiest times of day is when we realized the link really suffered. I felt obligated to share our VL results here because Marlon indicated he was looking for a business class product. VL is not that...at least not in our book. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Products that are best effort [snip product name] end up making guys like us look bad. I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed spectrum, regardless of manufacturer? There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a licensed channel can accomplish that? Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce the results we are after then we look at other products. We will not tie our hands to one brand. No reason to. Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on. Yes, CIR is what we sell not MIR. That may be a good thing for us or it may turn out to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to deliver. Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. Expectations and end results are everything to us. We meet expectations or we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation. It's a small town! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Agreed. But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset thing is that can be delivered. CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really needed? And what areas of your business or network
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
We typically make customer contact when a customer shows up as a regular on our 1Gbyte Honor Roll (a daily list of everyone with = 1Gbyte in or out in the past 24 hrs). Often we find they are infected, but sometimes P2Pers. We crank down their CIR if they don't clean up until they are off that 1GByte list. Rich - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps True, Matt, often a better way. Now, what to do with P2P abusers? . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps You don't need to host Akamai boxes and/or rely solely on Akamai's customers content for an improvement in experience and a decrease in transit cost. IMHO, the easier way is to simply peer with the various CDNs. If you peer with Akamai, LimeLight, Google, Yahoo, etc you won't pay for transit of their content and it will be fast... very fast. -Matt Jonathan Schmidt wrote: Hi, and Happy New Year, all, before I forget The Akamai caches content that folks pay them to put on it which includes stuff like Microsoft updates, Real Player updates and downloads, anti-virus vendor downloads, etc. It's really great since the latency vanishes and I note here that I experience downloads of updates of 4 to 5 megabits per second on the cable modem...a rate that wouldn't be possible even with the large XP window size with latencies to the original sites. However, it won't cache most sites since they are often not capable of being cached without breaking the experience for the user and, besides, Akamai doesn't care. It won't cache P2P traffic like BitTorrent or Napster, traffic that is likely the source of a lot of network load. It is a completely different animal in a different sphere of operation and, although valuable, isn't an ad-hoc cache. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi, We've had one for almost 5 years now... but there isn't anything to play with. They ship you three 1u servers and a Cisco switch. You plug everything in and turn it on. They do all the admin, config, setup, etc. and don't allow you access whatsoever. But it does work great. Microsoft updates come VERY fast (over 10Mbps speeds) and many other sites are just as fast. However, I have no idea who to contact, as we were approached by them. Travis Microserv David E. Smith wrote: George Rogato wrote: You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your network. All free. Any idea on how many subs you need before this becomes an option? I've heard that Akamai will do this, and I love having new toys in my NOC to play with, but I've never been able to find out just how you go about getting one. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - regardinginterference - Part 1
Good stuff. In the order presented, the text makes some statements about RX threshold damping. It is a powerful tool for a higher modulation radio operating in a noisy environment, as it allows the radio to block out and ignore signals received below the preset RF Rx Threshold. By creating an artificial receiver threshold below which no RF signals are processed, the Receiver Threshold Dampening allows for the rejection of distance interferences and reduces co-location interference at the expense of a reduced coverage radius. The text above immediately follows the excellent section on C/I. Presenting in this order I felt the text might somehow imply that by setting the threshold higher than the interfering signals, that the receiver can ignore the interference (it says this in so many words). If we're talking about the Carrier-to-Interference required above the surrounding interference it's giving you the wrong impression. That would be incorrect, and since it immediately followed the section on C/I I thought I could improve a bit here. You still need every inch of the required C/I above the interference. All that is being ignored is the receiver's energy detection (and whatever impact it may cause in the MAC's channel access algorithm) from reacting to receive energy below the threshold. The interference energy is still there, and additive with desired received signal. Another way of looking at this is that you need the same margin above the receiver noise threshold as you need above the interference (you still need both SNR and C/I). In my book this is not interference rejection at all. You need the same amount of required SNR above sensitivity and C/I above interference, but the technique can be useful in masking far-away weaker signals from screwing up your channel access if you were using something like CSMA. Rich - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:47 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - regardinginterference - Part 1 I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has gone...wow So, my 2 cents... One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of a system's interference robustness. However, before we can get into further detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS, etc -- it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone. Heck, all radios in the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is knowing what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle. Read on...I'll talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write Part 2 =) WHAT IS INTERERENCE? In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands - i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level in the intended transmission. Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from your own network(s) or from an outside source. If the interfering RF signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the same tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference. If the opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not under your control, it is termed outside interference. Thus, the definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on technology, but ownership. In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs) self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more or less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have signals transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where they do not impact network performance. Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues. The techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly to license-exempt systems. THE LICENSE-EXEMPT CHALLENGE OF INTERFERENCE In the license-exempt bands, not only must self-interference be accounted for, but, given the nature of the regulations governing these bands, external interference must be designed for as well. This can be extremely challenging, as there is no way of knowing in advance where these outside signals may be or will be sourced from, or even how strong the interfering transmissions will be relative to the desired transmission. This aspect of
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than sensitivity. At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the 20mbps Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances. OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly higher C/Is). OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can operate with less signal than 20mbps Canopy. And as you already expressed, with 17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster. But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can tolerate partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold. Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of time framed systems. I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong. I'm a great fan of time framed systems myself. It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system would have performed? I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge those definitions. However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to my comments. I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the reader would apply their knowledge of the definitions, to infer the relevance of comments made. To be more clear OFDM is plagued by a larger SNR to operate adequately, compared to DSSS. DSSS has been able to operate with minimum SNRs anywhere from 3db (canopy) to 8db (trango). Actually that comment is not exactly true, Canopy's C/I is 3db (not minimum SNR required). OFDM gear typically wants to see a minimum of 17db SNR, and performs optimally with 25db SNR. I'm not aware that Wifi gear has worse C/I specs than non-Wifi gear, based on it being Wifi (csma/ca). Wifi or TDD has nothing to do with Noise, Wifi TDD has to do with timing of transmissions. My point was that if you can't get over the noise, when using modulations less able to get over the noise, you can help solve the problem by transmitting when the noise is not occuring. Contant time based transmission has little benefit, if it occurs during a noisy time where that noise will kill the signal and results in packet loss. I'd rather have increased latency, and try again, to prevent packet loss. I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS to be able to survive the noise, with better SNRs Meant... DSSS gets over noise better than OFDM, and I like TDD gear when the gear can survive the noise floor, and DSSS gear is more likely to survive the noise floor, and well matched with TDD. If using OFDM, requiring larger SNR, harder to accomplish in high noise environements, a non-TDD based scheduling MAC such as CSMA/CA can improve overall end to end performance and reduce packet loss. A lost packet, end to end across a session, takes up WAY more bandwdith and has a penalty of WAY more LAtency, than hiding the packet loss from the session, and re-transmitting the loss at the specific link that the packet loss occured. The point I am making is that so many people judge performance by Link performance, which means nothing in terms of the performance that the end user experiences end to end. End USer Performance is about preventing and minimizing packet loss. A perfect exmaple was a link that I had to rebuild today. I tried to pull off a ofdm 900 Mhz link. I have a registered noise floor of -85, and an average signal of -55, but I had to pull out the link, because end to end, the best I could accomplish was 5-10% packet loss. The reason is that sporatic paging noise peaked loud enough to interfere with my signal (although not seen with cheap limited wifi built-in noise detection). I was able to do a radio to radio throughout test of almost 10 mbps. But thats not what the end user saw, trying to type in his remote office application. More like 30 seconds to see his characters show up on the screen after he typed them. But web browsing appeared OK. This particular case it demonstrates the harm of packet loss, allthough limited in relevance as it was a OFDM CSMA/CA link. Trango 900 DSSS w/ nosie compression built-in and ARQ, would have likely solved the problem. But thats because of DSSS's noise resilience, Trango compression (noise filtering) and ARQ, not because of its TDD spec. It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system would have performed? I can test it, because one doesn't exist, atleast not that I own. But I bet it would perform pretty
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1
Again, I think they're already being made, aren't they? for 3.5GHz. Doesn't have to be final WiMAX ... I presume that all the pre-WiMAX products are OFDM and TDD. I've yet to hear of one at 900, 2.4, or 5. Anyone? Am I all wet on what the pre-WiMAX products are? I could very well be all wet, as I am only talking from what I've picked up from reading here ... and I've not had any first-hand experience with real available pre-WiMAX gear that's out there. Alvarion's got pre-WiMAX gear ... maybe Patrick can confirm, or alternatively slap me back to reality! :-) Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1 lol...gotta love it! I'd argue it doesn't have to be only $300 to sell. I'd pay two or three times that for such a product. But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar. I like what you said about developing Trango products and agree they are way past due to leapfrog back to the front of the pack. Oh those were the days when Sunstream/Trango was the undisputed leader with the début of the M5800 and then the M5830. sigh Maybe they can do it again! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived -regardinginterference - Part 1 Charles, WOW! Great Post! That covers about everything. It increases the understanding of the complexity, but it doesn't answer the ultimate question, What to use. What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam diversity antennas, all pre-packaged in a system/box under $300. But that product does not exist today. So why doesn't a manufacturer just make it, so we can stop debating what is best, and just deploy radios! Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - regardinginterference - Part 1 I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has gone...wow So, my 2 cents... One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of a system's interference robustness. However, before we can get into further detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS, etc -- it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone. Heck, all radios in the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is knowing what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle. Read on...I'll talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write Part 2 =) WHAT IS INTERERENCE? In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands - i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level in the intended transmission. Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from your own network(s) or from an outside source. If the interfering RF signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the same tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference. If the opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not under your control, it is termed outside interference. Thus, the definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on technology, but ownership. In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs) self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more or less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have signals transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where they do not impact network performance. Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues. The techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly to license-exempt systems. THE
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios havearrived-regardinginterference- Part 1
Thanks for the info, Patrick. I sure hope these systems have all the attributes that Tom Brad were describing, and they're real and can be evaluated live now. I presume they have OFDM and TDD. Can anyone comment if they have everything in Brad's wish list? What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam diversity antennas, all pre-packaged in a system/box under $300. But that product does not exist today. So why doesn't a manufacturer just make it, so we can stop debating what is best, and just deploy radios! As Patrick says, they're available ... try'em out. Doubt they're $300, but I think Tom commented that such a radio would be worth more than $300 to him. If anyone has trialed them can they comment to the list? But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar. Don't know what this meant, as it's real Alvarion WiMAX product that Patrick is describing. I'm sure there's other brands also available now as well. Maybe it meant no product like it yet available in UL 900 / 2.4 / 5??? Dunno. A little help please? Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios havearrived-regardinginterference- Part 1 Alvarion's got actual WiMAX gear Rich. Our WiMAX-certified BreezeMAX 3500 is being deployed in over 100 commercial networks along with about 120 trials. In the U.S. we are selling and deploying early BreezeMAX 2500 and BreezeMAX 2300 to a handful of operators. These are TDD 802.16e-ready solutions and they will be certified when the WiMAX Forum opens up .16e certification testing. Some call BreezeACCESS pre-WiMAX, but that is only true to the extent that it uses OFDM and has a host of other features that some might call WiMAX-like. I am personally not fond of pre/like/kinda, etc. UNLESS the system is real WiMAX and just awaits the certification process, such as is the case with BreezeMAX 2300 and BreezeMAX 2500. BreezeMAX 3500 is already certified. Anything called BreezeMAX was designed from the ground up to support WiMAX profiles and will ultimately be WiMAX-certified. Anything in our line NOT called BreezeMAX will not ever be WiMAX-certified. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived-regardinginterference- Part 1 Again, I think they're already being made, aren't they? for 3.5GHz. Doesn't have to be final WiMAX ... I presume that all the pre-WiMAX products are OFDM and TDD. I've yet to hear of one at 900, 2.4, or 5. Anyone? Am I all wet on what the pre-WiMAX products are? I could very well be all wet, as I am only talking from what I've picked up from reading here ... and I've not had any first-hand experience with real available pre-WiMAX gear that's out there. Alvarion's got pre-WiMAX gear ... maybe Patrick can confirm, or alternatively slap me back to reality! :-) Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1 lol...gotta love it! I'd argue it doesn't have to be only $300 to sell. I'd pay two or three times that for such a product. But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar. I like what you said about developing Trango products and agree they are way past due to leapfrog back to the front of the pack. Oh those were the days when Sunstream/Trango was the undisputed leader with the début of the M5800 and then the M5830. sigh Maybe they can do it again! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived -regardinginterference - Part 1 Charles, WOW! Great Post! That covers about everything. It increases the understanding of the complexity, but it doesn't answer the ultimate question, What to use. What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original 802.16 plan. Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the game. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ... except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at some future date if the hardware is WiMAX. I dunno ... I think the reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the ball with HyperLAN2. It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL 5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development licensing. (Maybe, maybe not) For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16 originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement IIRC). Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band? Sigh... Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL bands. I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over 50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?) Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon. But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than sensitivity. At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the 20mbps Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances. OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly higher C/Is). OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can operate with less signal than 20mbps Canopy. And as you already expressed, with 17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster. But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can tolerate partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold. Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of time framed systems. I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong. I'm a great fan of time framed systems myself. It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system would have performed? I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is? Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge those definitions. However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to my comments. I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the reader would apply
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for UL I hear you. My disagreement is that a UL wisp standard SHOULD have been ready YEARS ago. HiperMAN is different than HiperLAN/2 (I incorrectly called it HyperLAN2 in the previous posts). You say the spec for UL WiMAX is not done yet. In a few days it'll be 2007. The spec for HiperLAN/2 was completed back in 2000 ... that's 7 years ago! 5 years ago there were prototype HiperLAN/2 products produced by Mitsubishi, NTT/Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, Stepmind, Theta and Thomson. Then ... something happened. 802.11a was shipping in the US, the 802.11h standard was adopted (adding DFS and TPC required for European acceptance), and the HiperLAN/2 coalition seemed to evaporate overnite. Apparently nobody considered the US UL wisp market as a viable candidate to sell the Hiperlan/2 products completed back in 2002, and I can't find any record of products ever being offered here. I can understand it, as it was driven by all large manufacturers anticipating the wireless LAN market volumes (which UL wisps can't come close to in collective volume). It's kind of funny that no wisp manufacturer offered any US HiperLAN/2 like products, while Motorola's Canopy was actually architecturally very similar to HiperLAN/2 (except for the non-OFDM layer1). Again, in a few days it'll be 2007 and they're still arguing over an UL WiMAX standard? Why not try the HiperLAN/2 standard completed long ago? Why? Because the standards participants are committed to licensed WiMAX manufacturing and are looking for a new UL standard with high commonality with licensed WiMAX / mobile WiMAX. It's a business decision to maximize return on their collective WiMAX chip investments. Unfortunately there's no UL wisp business coalition with sufficient standing to drive manufacturers for what UL wisps need ... (yet). Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:53 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for UL. I did not say in detail why (at least not in this post). For sure it is because the MAC was developed for licensed (LMDS actually) -- that's my point. It was never conceived of for UL. --- Also, there IS a WiMAX UL standard -- the profile has been in place for over a year. There just is not equipment and there has been no UL certification yet. http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view The reason has nothing to do with Europe (Alvarion's Mariana Goldhamer led the harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and IEEE 802.16 several years ago). The main vendors in the Forum (the ones that really drive things) all know the deal with UL and they are in no rush to deliver WiMAX in it's current form onto the U.S. market. Also, the existing UL WiMAX profile is for 802.16d-2004. The whole of the Forum is focusing on 802.16e-2005, in fact, the entire WiMAX ecosystem you hear about it all relative to 802.16e-2005. Migrations from .16d-2005 to .16e-2005 are not software type changes. All that combined with the non-UL MAC = folks will be sorry for sinking CAPEX into certain UL WiMAX. Buyer beware and know the deal. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit. Fact is, it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original 802.16 plan. Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the game. Anyone that buys it before the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry. Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ... except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at some future date if the hardware is WiMAX. I dunno ... I think the reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the ball with HyperLAN2. It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL 5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development licensing. (Maybe, maybe not) For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16 originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement IIRC). Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band? Sigh... Rich - Original
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
I worked for a manufacturer that certified product with the FCC. The legality issue for FCC type acceptance can be argued in certain circumstances. Truth is, we didn't re-apply for FCC type acceptance every time we changed a resistor value or made some board change or modified the software. It's arguable that the need for FCC type acceptance is only required when a change in the product alters the rf modulation. When it was clear to us that it did, we'd re-apply for FCC type acceptance. If someone puts an FCC type accepted radio card into box with a single board computer combined with some OS on the SBC, I'm not sure there's any legality issue as far as the FCC is concerned. I think the question is whether there's anything in the SBC external software that's changed the rf characteristics of the radio card that's already been FCC type accepted. If not ... why is it illegal? Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Lonnie, Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that there isn't a reason not to get certified. The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any need. Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be used daily. Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent antenna? I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a collection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal (FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Well said. You've covered issues in deploying your FCC certified radio product with various pre-approved antennas. Now, when it comes to selling a box with a computer and radio in it, the questions are a bit different. If it's a radio integrated onto a computer board, my belief it that it's got to be FCC accepted, certified, and bear the FCC ID, FCC certified label, and of course the This device complies with Part 15 of FCC Rules ... blah, blah, blah. If you're having a board manufactured with the 802.11a chips on it, I think you've got to get tested certified. On the other hand, if you're integrating an SBC with a radio card manufactured by another vendor who has already certified the card (it has the FCC ID, FCC certified logo, the Part 15 compliance) then I'm at a loss as to why this is not completely legal. You're not a manufacturer ... you're an integrator. I can't see why you'd need to re-test and certified a box with a radio that already bears the FCC certification. If you need to re-certify, then BestBuy'd need to certify to sell you a PC with the LAN card installed, CompUSA'd need to certify, etc. But if you integrate a certified radio, and reflash its code in a way that modifies its modulation behavior, then you've become a radio manufacturer ... and you need to actually go through a complete FCC type acceptance testing. However, in my opinion it's got to be modified at layer 1 (physical layer) to require this. Changing the Media Access Control (layer 2) or above is just not grounds to require re-certification IMHO. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor have ever played a lawyer on TV. I am actually not qualified to comment on the topics I have just commented on! :-) They are just my ignorant opinions, and I'd greatly appreciate anyone who could kick some sense into me should I be all wet. Peace, Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys. (Why did I know that THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the kettle)) Here's how it works. If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 4 watts. 36dB. That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands. I forget what the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the ap. The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit. As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type. If you are using an ap radio (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less. Want to run a 15 dB hpol omni? Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on this one but I don't think so). Certainly if you want to put a sector on, so sorry, no can do. Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector. Here's the really fun part. Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system. AND the devices have to be keyed to each other. Meaning that the ap and the amp have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI. On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and match in the UNII band anyway. 900 mhz 4 watts max. You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with the radio. If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi that's 20dB or less. If they certified no yagis you can't use one. 2.4 ghz Starts at 4 watts. 30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain. For ever dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB. At 24 dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid. This gives you a total of 60 watts of output. Same rules apply though. If the radio isn't certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't do this. Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything with the LARGEST antenna of all common types! If they aren't certified with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the radios. 5.8 ghz Starts with 4 watts. 30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain. Go as big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power. Same other rules about certification apply. Is my network perfect? Nope. Is it all within eirp limits? You bet. Well, I've got one sector that used
Re: [WISPA] churn, double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it
Patrick, I agree with your engineer's description. But I'd argue the use of the word prioritization is incorrectly applied to Canopy. Canopy doesn't prioritize VoIP. Priority schemes infer media access preference. Canopy's separate pre-allocated partitions have nothing to do with prioritization as VoIP and general traffic do not compete for a common partition (they each have their own). VL uses prioritization (and uses the term correctly), as VoIP is given priority access (most likely by permitting access with a shorter time gap following other transmissions than general data ... thus VoIP grabs the media first). If VL claims to be the first to implement a VoIP priority it only depends whether anyone else has implemented a true priority scheme already. Canopy's is not a priority scheme in any sense of the term. Prioritization has the clear advantage (no pun intended). Canopy essentially divides the rf into subchannels which loses the ability to dynamically use the channel for in-vs-out, VoIP-vs-general, etc. As the 3rd party testing described, the VoIP call volume cited could only be achieved in a VoIP-only configuration. A true prioritization mechanism (such as embodied in VL) is far superior to pre-allocated partitions in so, so many ways. Rich - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Gino, After you informed me of the way prioritization occurs in your solution, I asked one of our sharp engineers to articulate the differences to me. Here was his reply back and I'd be interested in your feedback: The [prioritization mechanism in the] __ system is different than VL in the way it is deployed and the way it will deploy a priority network. With VL the bandwidth for the sector is totally dynamic, any direction demand can utilize the entire capacity of the base station. __ pre-defines the amount up and down to the sector. Their implementation of the prioritization is stated for DSCP only where we can do it also for ToS. I am not sure if that is unique but keep it in the back of your head. Our WLP is also dynamic; where he stated that you specify the amount of bandwidth for the priority channel, our can/will fluctuate every microsecond during the communication. This will also happen independently in each direction. Because there is a potential for over subscription of prioritized traffic, VL also has an option to set aside some bandwidth for best effort traffic incase the provider creates too much prioritized traffic. This prevents the FTP from a customer from breaking during the high priority traffic times. Make sense? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:24 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Back home...ahhh to bad when it ends... Frankly , I don't know ... maybe has to due with the TDD system, next firmware release should improve overall pps capacity Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it It does sound like a similar smart mechanism Gino -- I stand corrected. If this is who I assume it is though, then why do they report such low VoIP performance per SM and per AP? ...but don't answer any of this until after you leave Vail. Better that you should just enjoy your vacation. Sounds great. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Well, I haven't replied to this earlier cause Im on vacation (skiing @ Vail ) but now, let me add some info... I don't want to get involved in a gear fight, but a brand x gear has a Per Sector prioritization of traffic. It works like this: You set the cpe to identify the traffic to be prioritized using Diffserv, ( it can be any type of traffic not just voip) Then you activate on the cpe the high priority channel option Set how much bandwidth this high priority channel would use And you are done, The Sector AP identifies all the cpes on the sector using this feature and
Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...
Absolutely amazing how many windows phones have come out in the last few months. Just 12 months ago there were only 3 ... and now there's got'ta be dozens. I love my PPC6700 so much I bought a 2nd one ... EVDO / RTT1X / IS95 tri-mode, bluetooth, wifi, camera, added a couple GB on mini-SD, slide-out full keyboard, huge screen. Got Microsoft VC++ enterprise ... it comes with windows mobile 5 development environment. But I was disappointed at how stripped down the windows mobile version of MFC was. If you can get one without the neutered OS you'll be happier. The carriers have stripped key networking components of the OS to keep you from using your phone as a wifi access point for nearby laptops. I've got the original fully capable OS and it's amazing what you can do. If you see a pop-up that says a newer version of OS is available, click here ... DON'T!!! It's a neutered version from your carrier (not from Microsoft) which removes specific dial-up networking components to limit your abilities. You mention Linux as the preferred platform. My old Moto buddies tell me Moto offered a Linux based phone platform for 2 whole years and NOBODY stepped up for developing applications ... so Moto abandonned it switching to Windows to launch the Q phone. I think it casts doubt whether the market really wanted a Linux platform phone. I mean, when you offer a supported Linux product and nobody gives a hoot ... what would you conclude? Rich - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... Apparently Nokia is now out with the N800, the successor to the 770. I don't have techno-lust details yet - look for yourself at http:// www.nseries.com/products/n800/#l=products,n800, but friends tell me it fixes the weaknesses of the 770, and is the preferred Linux hacking platform (cool open source stuff coming out for it) for portable Internet-connected devices. One of the funnier... cooler... things I've seen of late is Bluetooth GPS devices. One I saw REALLY impressed me - it was deep inside a restaurant, but was still able to get a fix from the windows more than 20' away. Thanks, Steve On Jan 22, 2007, at Jan 22 10:49 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, It's funny you posted this message today I just picked up a new test phone I am trying to replace my Treo 650. I grabbed an HP iPaq 6945 from Cingular for $189 (with two year contract) and have been playing with it on an off for the last couple of days. The biggest advantage to this phone is the built-in GPS, along with WiFi and Bluetooth. There are some neat functions that are already built-in to the main OS... such as the camera showing GPS coordinates on the picture when you take it (if you enable that option). Also, many commercial map programs (TomTom 6, etc.) work on this phone with the GPS. With a simple car mount and car adapter, you have a full-fledged GPS device built into your phone. There are also programs that will connect to WiFi and update GPS coordinates to a website... so you could have real-time locations for your installers with no monthly fee. ;) It's running Windows Mobile 5, which is better than any other Windows phone OS I have used, but still not as easy to navigate as the Palm OS. The biggest feature on the Treo 650 for me is the SMS messaging. It's easy to access (single button) and it keeps a chat dialog going with each person you have talked to. I send and receive over 100 messages per day, sometimes 200-300. It's quick, easy, and can be done with one hand. If there was just a simple program that would function the same, the iPaq could be a great phone for me. I should also mention I purchased a Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. This is a pretty cool device as well built in WiFi and Bluetooth, running Linux with a nice GUI. Nice wide, bright screen too. It just doesn't have a phone or GPS, just WiFi. Still pretty cool for that type of a device. Travis Microserv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...
AFAIK Sprint and T-Mobile do not strip any features from the phone. Oh yeah? Both my PPC6700s are on Sprint. Our main SW developer uses the 2nd one ... he has a habit of regularly getting latest updates on all devices. Sprint's support site listed a new OS for download (it wasn't from a microsoft site -- it was from Sprint). The PPC6700 with the Sprint downloaded OS Update has key elements of the dial-up networking removed. I didn't update mine, and glad I didn't. I can browse the web from my laptop over bluetooth thru the phone. On the phone with the updated OS we can't do this anymore. It's natural that the carrier would try to remove some of the OS flexibility, as they want to sell a higher cost subscription for pc tethered operation. From their perspective it was a problem needing to be solved that Microsoft windows mobile 5 would permit any phone with a pc wireless interface to do this. Rich - Original Message - From: Frank To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:13 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness... I have the T-Mobile version of this phone called the MDA. AFAIK Sprint and T-Mobile do not strip any features from the phone. I belive one or two of the other carriers do strip some features. A little writeup on all the software that I use on my MDA, GPS (Franson GPSgate highly recommended for use with GPS), Mapping etc: http://snurl.com/ultimatePDA I've used this phone in Europe and the mobile data worked perfectly for the PDA and Dial Up Networking for my laptop (with no roaming data surcharge). Frank -Original Message- From: Rich Comroe Absolutely amazing how many windows phones have come out in the last few months. Just 12 months ago there were only 3 ... and now there's got'ta be dozens. I love my PPC6700 so much I bought a 2nd one ... EVDO / RTT1X / IS95 tri-mode, bluetooth, wifi, camera, added a couple GB on mini-SD, slide-out full keyboard, huge screen. Got Microsoft VC++ enterprise ... it comes with windows mobile 5 development environment. But I was disappointed at how stripped down the windows mobile version of MFC was. If you can get one without the neutered OS you'll be happier. The carriers have stripped key networking components of the OS to keep you from using your phone as a wifi access point for nearby laptops. I've got the original fully capable OS and it's amazing what you can do. If you see a pop-up that says a newer version of OS is available, click here ... DON'T!!! It's a neutered version from your carrier (not from Microsoft) which removes specific dial-up networking components to limit your abilities. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
This thread should not hit a nerve, as I think it has. I've read a lot of your stuff, so I know you're a bright guy. You know that while telephone talk-time may not be metered for many phone services that if everyone picked up their phone that the chances of getting a trunk out of your local office would drop to zero. That's just science, not marketing. No matter how your terms of service are sold there's a real engineering metric called erlangs per user, and it's expected value is much-much less than 1. This is traffic engineering, not marketing. It's the real science behind what most wisps describe as oversubscription. The lower the average erlangs per user the more users a given bandwidth serves. There are actually textbooks and mature classes on the subject going back 40 years (the science was matured long ago by telephone engineering from the Bell System). It's a legitimate concern what to do about users that statistically use x10 fold, x100 fold, or even x1000 fold or more over the average. Unless you're a service provider with a statistically HUGE number of users you cannot afford to let the averages take care of themselves as phone carriers do. Even so, with the typically small number of users per access point, a statistically anomalous user can destroy service to other customers unlucky to share the same channel ... it's something that simply MUST be addressed. What the writer described, I call the leaky bucket algorithm, and there are some wisp manufacturers that actually code this into their radio products (no need to perform it via a head-end traffic shaper). If your deployed radios do not, a head-end traffic shaper can do the same thing. It's referred to as the leaky bucket algorithm because it's has a physical similarity. Imagine a bucket of a given size that has a leak ... through which the user draws water. In an instant, the user cannot draw more water than the bucket currently holds (referred to as burst size). Once the bucket, or burst size, has been drawn, the user cannot draw more than the bucket's refill rate (referred to as sustained rate). Radios with this built-in typically specify a burst size and sustained rate per CPE, for inbound, and for outbound (4 parameters in total). I'm familiar with many wisps that set the burst sizes to 10M (don't know any that set it to 1G as the author hypothesized), and set sustained rates at 256kbps or 384kbps. The interesting thing about the algorithm is that burst size is dimensionless (it's only a size, and not a rate ... the rate is determined by the radio channel and traffic levels), while the sustained rate is a true rate (bits/sec). I appologize for the lecture, but traffic engineering has always been a topic of interest to me going way back. But I have great concerns for the viability of wisps that don't appreciate the issue (unless they only sell business service where throughput per user is sold with SLAs ... engineering to a high erlang per user, or equivalently described as a low oversubscription rate). regards, Rich - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to deciding for the customer? -Matt Jason wrote: List, Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm Lookin' For... Here's what I'd like to do: 1. Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe. This way casual surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy. 2. If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes). 3. Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues to download. 4. After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3). I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out there. The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't know the actual values): 1. Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth. 2. The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k. 3. The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 1meg. 4. If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are replenished, he eventually gets only 128k. Does anyone know how to get something like this going? I am especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions. Jason -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List:
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
128-6,016 6,016 SU-54 128-53,888 32,896 128-53,888 32,896 Table 4-13: CIR Ranges and Defaults CIR Uplink and Downlink Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps) SU-3 0-2,048 0 SU-6 0-4,096 0 SU-54 0-45,056 0 4.2.6.6.2.5 Maximum Burst Duration (SU and AU) Sets the maximum time for accumulating burst transmission rights according to the Burst Duration algorithm. Available values range from 0 to 2000 milliseconds). The default value is 5 (milliseconds), enabling a maximum burst of (0.005 X CIR) Kbps after a period of inactivity of 5 milliseconds or more. 4.2.6.6.2.6 Maximum Delay (SU only) Sets the maximum permitted delay in the buffers system. As certain applications are very sensitive to delay, if relatively high delays are permitted, these applications may suffer from poor performance due to data accumulation in the buffers from other applications, such as FTP. The Maximum Delay parameter limits the number of available buffers. Data that is delayed more than the permitted maximum delay is discarded. If the SU supports applications that are very sensitive to delay, the value of the Maximum Delay should be decreased. Valid values range from 300 to 1 milliseconds. The default value is 5000 (milliseconds). 4.2.6.6.2.7 Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only) Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR (IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the simple brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should be raised in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected demand in a cell, the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. Higher demand can be expected in cases of significant over subscription and/or in deployments where a high number of subscribers are in locations without proper communication with the AU at the highest data rate. The available values range from 0 to 70 (%). The default value is 70 (%). 4.2.6.6.2.8 MIR Only Option (AU only) When the MIR Only Option is enabled, it forces the MIR/CIR algorithm to use MIR values only. The MIR/CIR algorithm determines the actual information rate for each of the supported SUs under changing conditions of demand, based on the configured CIR and MIR values. When the MIR Only Option is enabled, the MIR/CIR algorithm is overridden and forced to operate with MIR values only. For example, the AU attempts to enable all SUs to transmit/receive information at the specified MIR value. When enabled, the graceful degradation algorithm, which is a part of the CIR/MIR algorithm, is also disabled. The default is Enable. 4.2.6.6.2.9 Show MIR/CIR Parameters Displays the current values of the MIR and Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management Fascinating. I only spoke of leaky bucket because that's practically a match to what Jason originally described to the list (and I happen to know of radios that have this algorithm internally programmed -- happens to be Canopy). But I presume there are other algorithms programmed to different manufacturer's radios. Patrick, is it possible to share details of the Alvarion implemented 4th gen algorithm you spoke of? This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Wow! Thanks much. So linux bandwidth management implements the Token Bucket Algorithm in its queue controls, which is similar to, but not the same as the Leaky Bucket Algorithm I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the subtle diference, but it'll take some time: Now that I've read about the Token Bucket Algorithm from the Linux URL you provided, I've found a source that contrasts them (shamelessly, it's wikipedia!): Two predominant methods for shaping traffic exist: a leaky bucket implementation and a token bucket implementation. Sometimes the leaky bucket and token bucket algorithms are mistakenly lumped together under the same name. Both these schemes have distinct properties and are used for distinct purposes [1]. They differ principally in that the leaky bucket imposes a hard limit on the data transmission rate, whereas the token bucket allows a certain amount of burstiness while imposing a limit on the average data transmission rate. I can't say I understand the difference yet, but I'm motivated. Does anyone else understand or know how to explain the difference? Rich - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote: Thanks much. I love it when you talk technical! Sorry, couldn't help it... No really, the devil is always in the details in these things. This is just the detail I was looking for. After I digest I hope I may send questions your way off-list. Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have built-in. If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how to implement them. http://lartc.org http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html thanks again, Rich -Ryan -- InvisiMax Ryan Langseth Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: (218) 745-6030 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote: Thanks much. I love it when you talk technical! Sorry, couldn't help it... No really, the devil is always in the details in these things. This is just the detail I was looking for. After I digest I hope I may send questions your way off-list. Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have built-in. If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how to implement them. http://lartc.org http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html thanks again, Rich -Ryan -- InvisiMax Ryan Langseth Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: (218) 745-6030 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
My precious! It further occurs to me that even if you have radio built-in bw management you would also be pretty smart to have bw management enabled at the head-end, too. Why? Radio built-in bw management will block customer excess rate inbound customer traffic from wasting your rf capacity between CPE Access Point, but if you've got rf backhaul to the site you need head-end bw management as well to block excess rate outbound customer traffic from wasting the rf backhaul bw before it ever reaches the AP's outbound bw management. And the outbound bw is typically greater than the inbound bw anyway. So it now looks prudent to me to have BOTH bw management built into the radios, AND at the head-end. Rich - Original Message - From: Jason To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command. HTB is the 'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works well. HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings. 'Leaky Bucket' is a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping. Jason Rich Comroe wrote: Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list. I learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket. I now understand that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket). Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of their bw management algorithms. I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw management. Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less sophisticated. I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw management can do at the head-end if your radios don't. Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer radio if the radios are bridged. Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or not. Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?). Rich From: Ryan Langseth To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote: Thanks much. I love it when you talk technical! Sorry, couldn't help it... No really, the devil is always in the details in these things. This is just the detail I was looking for. After I digest I hope I may send questions your way off-list. Still hoping operators using other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have built-in. If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how to implement them. http://lartc.org http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html thanks again, Rich -Ryan -- InvisiMax Ryan Langseth Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: (218) 745-6030 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm
No, EVDO and RTT1X are the data modulations that the PPC6700 can do, which the Sprint network supports. The Sprint option plan for data is called PowerVision, and includes unlimited internet to the phone ... pretty sweet, and for only a few dollars a month over the phone service. With PowerVision I don't think you're supposed to use it tethered to your PC ... they sell separate packages for EVDO PCMCIA cards. But with the original installed Windows Mobile (don't download the sprint provided OS update) I can run dial-up network thru the phone via USB cable or bluetooth. However, I find the PPC6700 big display slide-out keyboard sufficient for daily use. Thanks to you David for the clue that there was a windows mobile version of Slingbox player. Didn't know that. Loaded it up and it's great! Rich - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm Sounds like that may be the way to go. almost everything through cell EVDO - X1 data Is that a Sprint plan option? Or through another carrier's service? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David T. Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm I use the Sprint 6700 Pocket PC Windows based smartphone and I can connect to almost everything through cell EVDO - X1 data, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi (802.11 B/G) and it can receive email and IMs in the background. I can watch TV on it from my Slingbox located at my home, keep up with info from the Web and it has 1 gig SD card for backup, etc. Plus, I leave a little room on the card for a few of my country music tunes (grin) Dave David T. Hughes Director, Corporate Communications Roadstar Internet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell(703) 587-3282 Home (703) 234-9969 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm I had a Palm phone. The draw back is occationally they loose their internal battery power the the Flash, and you loose all the software and configs loaded. So its hard to rely on anything you put on it, and must rely on the Sync to destop for data retention. Do any of the hand helds, have rock solid storage systems, that are near impossible to wipe out? Such as Compact Flash or HardDisk? I LOVE my Sprint Phone. It has taken more abuse than any device on earth should be capable of taking, and keeps ticking. (dropped off a tower at 200 ft, Caught up in a Car Wheel well (wrapped around front wheel drive shaft) and driven 20 miles). And the Voice quality is the BEST or most consistent of any service that I've used in DC, based on attempting to communicate with Field techs with their various phone service provider brands. Where the Sprint falls short is Internet Access and messaging. We were never able to figure out how to pass data into the needed messaging field correctly, and it does not have full Internet Access for remote anywhere access to do critical low bandwidth things like remote access to reboot radios. The Cingular on the other hand, had crappy voice, but we get meaningful easilly to check alerting, and Instant Internet access adequate for low bandwidth usage. As much as I hate to leave Sprint after 10 years, I may have to change to Cingular, or get an EVDO portable device. I never really understood the Blackberry thing. But what I will say is that every executive that uses a Blackberry, that I do business with, has excellent and timely communication with me. I don't believe in cooincidences. There is something uniquely advantages about the Blackberry other than just its exchange integration. But I have not put my finger on what it is. I've avoided the srpint change because my hearing is so bad, and the Sprint makes all the difference. But in todays generation, as an IT company we can not ignore the mobile broadband advantage. I still believe that for the average consumer, portal broadband is unnecessary. But for support personelle and mobile work force, it is a REAL big time and money saver. Technology is the secret to response time. Plus Sprint's evil billing practices have been getting annoying recently. But then again, Sprint's unlimited Text Messaging doesn't send me random $400 Text message bills like Cincular had the ability to do from time to time. (I think they charged per page, We had to change all our Alerting to be several lines,
Re: [WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)
Amen, and well said. There is a lot that an industry org can do in this respect. I'm familiar with APCO and find many similarities. (key: APCO = Association of Publicsafety Communications Officials ... www.apcointl.org) Here's some examples. 1.. Speak for the industry to the FCC. APCO's board forms committees that respond under APCO's name to all FCC inquiries. Wispa seems to be doing alright in this regard by volunteer effort rather than organization. 2.. Set positions to its membership on FCC issues. I hear the wispa leadership expressing their opinions on things like the FCC forms. Are they speaking for themselves, or are they speaking an officially formulated position for wispa? If wispa has set a position on these FCC forms, are their positions found on a website? Does wispa have a procedure to formulate an official position? I sense wispa's growing into this role. 3.. I think Steve Stroh is right on the money regarding recommended systems. APCO for example plays a major role in this regard. Wispa could create official positions on what equipment is approved (legal), what is not, etc. APCO goes further, establishing a role of influence regarding desired. For example, while there's no way to deny how much the standards such as 802.11h WiMAX may influence wisps, but is there any formulating participation under wispa's name? APCO goes much further taking a leadership role in the formulation of equipment standards for their recommended use. Every city is free to purchase and deploy any equipment they choose. But APCO established a position on interoperability 10 years ago (I was a participant) and ultimately I think the new Democratic congress will budget some federal money for inon-interoperable deployed systems to be replaced with APCO's recommendation as one of the previously unfunded recommendations of the 9/11 committee. The moral of this story is that when there's federal money being earmarked for broadband it's vital that wispa have a position (not just voices of volunteer membership). I recognize that this isn't necessarily a fair comparison. APCO had a source of income to draw on (frequency coordinator for public safety systems) beyond simple membership dues. It's tough when participation of all members is essentially unpaid overtime. Wispa is more like ASNA in this respect (American SMR Network Association ... an industry association of Specialized Mobile Radio operators ... very much like wisps). I just wanted to chime-in support of Steve's observations of what he suggests wispa might do in regards to setting positions on equipment. - Original Message - From: Steve Stroh To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces) John: It's a hard truth that any industry association defacto represents their ENTIRE industry... not just the ones who deign to become dues- paying members of that industry association. In the eyes of lawmakers, regulators, the public, investors, analysts, etc., if WISPA purports to represent the WISP industry, it must be prepared to speak about, and be knowledgeable of, the ENTIRE WISP industry, even those participants of an industry that a formal association such as WISPA would simply rather NOT even acknowledge the existence of. It's NOT one vendor's job, no matter how fundamentally important to a particular industry, to try to police the other vendors in an industry. If government will not police the bad players, then it falls to industry groups such as WISPA, and WISPA could easily do such a thing by maintaining an annually updated recommended systems list available to all. For a vendor's products to be on that list would be somewhat rigorous, having to document that their system meets all relevant regulations. A favorite product doesn't make the list? Maybe there's a reason why, and a prospective user of such a system is given considerable pause. In my opinion, based on nearly TEN years of following the WISP industry nearly from its inception, I think Patrick considerably understates the case about many... (I won't go quite as far as to say most) WISPs not being compliant with FCC rules, even the recently liberalized rules that permit mixing and matching of antennas. One can gather ample evidence of this just from comments made on this list. Finally... if there is ANYONE the WISP industry that has earned the right to speak such hard truths, it is Patrick Leary. Patrick has been a TIRELESS, FEARLESS, INCREDIBLY VALUABLE advocate for the WISP industry, especially in its formative years. He has personally advocated on behalf of the WISP industry to government personnel as high as FCC Chairman Powell, as well as promoting the WISP industry to investors, legislators, officials of other countries... and
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
DOT is ***supposed*** to switch to DSRC for this. DSRC was allocated 75MHz at 5.9Ghz just above the U-NII band based on roadway highway needs such as this DOT application. I participated in DSRC formulation enough to know that DOT had been experimenting with UL for years for highway signage applications in anticipation of DSRC. I believe there's a good case to be made that they should migrate away from UL as soon as DSRC equipment is available ... but alas I don't think it's available yet. This would be an appropriate topic for a wispa position. - Original Message - From: cw To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road). They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed. WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw Patrick Leary wrote: No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs, large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that. - Original Message - I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines. From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist. Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and discouraging the slippery slope. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone Seen AppleTV yet ?
I haven't been following compression formats all that closely but I've been amazed what things like SlingBox can do with only a couple hundred kiloBITS/second (not even kilobytes/sec). I think it's microsoft asf (is that mpeg4?) and I've seen good quality sent UPSTREAM from customer cpe (within the typically lower upstream cap). Rich - Original Message - From: David E. Smith To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone Seen AppleTV yet ? Rick Smith wrote: Wonder what kinda bandwidth this will eat up. http://www.apple.com/appletv/ Not much more than what your customers are already using. Basically, it lets you watch purchased content from iTunes on your television. iTunes has sold TV shows for quite a while now. If it tried to stream content, there might be an issue, but AFAIK it doesn't do that. Heck, aside from the iTunes hook, a soft-modded Xbox makes a much better media center, and you can probably find one at your local pawn shop for fifty bucks. :-) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. Search for a different name: PHS. It was fascinating to walk the streets of Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on their 1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System). It became a public CRAZE to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of mating digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street corner and shopping area. Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't know that they're right or wrong. It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could never work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just like WiFi). Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your cordless phone to work when in range of any base unit. While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places. England tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled). According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while it's enjoying a resurgence in other Asian markets. Unfortunately it looks like the US allocation didn't match the Japanese allocation exactly or you could just purchase Japanese product (there seemed like hundreds of different models for sale on the streets of Akihabara). However, back then it was often INTENTIONAL to NOT set the US rules the same as in other countries as a way of preventing existing foreign products from being imported. Who lobbies for the protocol and procedure rules the FCC adopted? Likely US manufacturers who would never have had a chance to get started were US band rules set the same as Japans. Problem is, if US manufacturers choose not to step-up, no product becomes available. Unfortunately I am personally aware of examples where manufacturers intentionally lobbied for rules that would make existing foreign radios noncompatible even though they had no intention of building. It happens. You likely never heard of a product called DSRR either (digital short range radio) which was allocated but intentionally torpedoed by manufacturers lobbying for standards that they knowingly never intended to build to. Rich - Original Message - From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:53 PM Subject: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history In the early 90's the FCC set about to create additional unlicensed and licensed spectrum. This was specifically for PCS, or personal communications services. UTAM was created and tasked with the job of migrating what was then a large network of terrestrial microwave networks to other frequencies / spectrum. Over 100 mhz of spectrum was cleared by hte FCC / UTAM and in the mid 90's it began to be auctioned off to PCS providers. Sprint, I believe, was the first to offer services using this spectrum - ergo, Sprint PCS. UTAM then acted as frequency coordinator as new users came in and old users migrated - especially for unlicensed. Of this spectrum, 1910 to 1930 mhz and 2390 to 2400 mhz is now unlicensed spectrum. Originally a larger slice, eventually part of it was given to Nextel and part devoted to AWS (advanced Wireless SErvices) and auctioned off. Why? The space, after years, was still almost utterly unused. Smack dab in the middle of the PCS spectrum lies fallow ground. Search the internet and you're unable to find U-PCS (Unlicensed PCS) products. UTAM cleared hte spectrum, and fees from manufacturers of the products for this spectrum were to be used to pay back the costs of liberating the unlicensed spectrum. Today those fees are $50k per manufacturer and $0.50 per device to use the space. U-PCS has very low ERP limits, it's useful for in-building phones or networking devices. HOwever, the FCC created its own version of a non- interference protocol and specified channel maximum and minimum sizes, and nobody built networking devices for that frequency. Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. UTAM remains millions of dollars in debt after paying users to clear the microwave spectrum. Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't know that they're right or wrong. Each time the FCC promotes the idea of more
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
Scriv- When does this happen? Uhhh ... every representative to every standards body that works for a manufacturer is lobbying for what that manufacturer sees as best for their company ... which is not necessarily in alignment with what's best for the public or the operators. Standards participation is considered a business tool. It's that way in ASTM, TIA, ETSI, IEEE, IETF. The rules of these bodies vary greatly in the qualification of users groups to be voting members (the IETF is the most liberal in this respect ... I think virtually ANY participant can vote). Whenever a body is deliberating on something pertinent to an organized industry association, it's important (vital) that the association has an active, VOTING, membership ... and apply that vote to what they feel is best for their represented industry. Does WISPA have a voting membership in the IEEE group formulating the WiMAX standard? It's vital. Mark- IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over the last 15yrs (as you advocate). Over this period I think I've become more and more against this as I assess how this has left the US and our airways. In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even though it's the same frequency. In Europe all towers are mandated compatible as was PREVIOUSLY true in the US (while the EC still regulates European airways for what's best for their people). The US airway have become a free-for-all of non-compatible technologies, with destructive consequences for US manufacturers, operators, and the public in general. When I worked for a manufacturer I voted what management judged was best for that manufacturer. However, I'm now retired, and I've become a vocal advocate that the FCC should resume the role it once held as oversee-er to (at minimum) insure that all deployed equipment plays nice (if not compatibly). I'm disappointed that FCC rules for unlicensed outdoor (all bands) never mandated a minimum set of play-nice media access rules (not to say I didn't cheerfully participate in a proprietary MAC product when I worked for one manufacturer ... but I think I've seen the error of those ways). The classic argument against this is that it inhibits innovation. Not true IMHO. Just look at the 2.4GHz IEEE standards. An organized standards body can, and does evolve standards (802.11b - 802.11g) such that it is COORDINATED. It's simply not true that standards lock you into obsolete technology. I think the FCC relinquished its responsibility during the 2nd generation cellular licensing process where they became infatuated with how much the auctions could net monetarily ... if they simply allowed the winner to deploy whatever technology they felt like. The airways belong to the American people. It's my government, and I wished they acted in my best interests ... and not as a revenue generator for the federal budget. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history Brilliant - standards building as a means of disabling US access to technology innovation. Wow. I certainly hope you have vision enough to see and thwart this type of activity in the future. I have heard you have the intellectual knowledge to do so. Please let us know when to cry foul in the future. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. Search for a different name: PHS. It was fascinating to walk the streets of Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on their 1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System). It became a public CRAZE to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of mating digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street corner and shopping area. Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't know that they're right or wrong. It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could never work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just like WiFi). Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your cordless phone to work when in range of any base unit. While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places. England tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled). According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while it's enjoying
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
We don't have to agree. I certainly respect differing opinions as long as their from people that seem to know the field. I thought the switch to 2nd gen put up whatever you want was a departure from earlier FCC stand ... when all 1st gen cellular systems would follow the TIA approved AMPS standard. Why do I think the change was not for our best? Because the US manufacturers went from world domination of cellular (you could take your amps phone anywhere in the world), to last place (almost the entire world adopted the GSM standard in the face of the US meltdown in digital cellular standards). You can dislike GSM, but it became the defacto world standard and you can take your GSM phone anywhere. US cellular manufacturers world market share plumeted, and manufacturers that built to the USDC (TIA IS54) and CDMA (TIA IS95) found very few foreign markets that would accept product. The US became one of the very few nations on the planet where a carrier could deploy anything they wanted. The NexTel system, likewise, can be found almost nowhere except US / Canada. Pick any 2 people in the US with cellphones, and it's more likely than not they are incompatible not able to receive service from the same tower. Technically it provides everyone in the entire United States with inferior coverage (considering the number of total towers providing service), more expensive phones (multi-mode), inferior voice quality (extra voice decoding / recoding becuase they all have incompatible voice codecs), and additional voice latency. Eventually European GSM became yet another US deployed technology adding to the mish-mosh. US Standards participants coined the phrase if one standard is good, multiple standards are better. This is non-sense. If there's not a single standard you have no standard. A single standards does not inhibit technology, because standards continuously evolve and eventually extend to new technologies in a compatible, planned way. Just look at 802.11 ... it's a classic example of an evolving standard. Standards do inhibit something ... but it's not technology ... its the choice to deploy whatever you want. It imposes a certain discipline for the general public ... which I think is a good thing. It's disheartening as all hell to look at a field near me with 4 antenna towers (3 of them 500ft) and a different wisp providing service from each (from an interference standpoint). There's roughly 30 different 5.7GHz transmitters all within 1000ft and LOS of each other. There's so many examples like this which simply scream at you that the wisps would collectively have benefitted were some minimum media access procedures common across all these devices. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich - Original Message - From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:56:40 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote Scriv- Mark- IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over the last 15yrs (as you advocate). Actually, I disagree. I think the FCC was attempting to create a market on their own. Cellular type service flourished. The envisioned unlicensed PCS was a flop. I'm not going to profess to have the definitive answer as to why, my view of the topic is totally WISP centric, I don't really CARE about spectrum reserved for devices that can't reach more than a couple hundred feet at absolute best. I just think that we might gain some understanding of what's going on if we look at a current flop and success. I'm not really sure the FCC is responding to the market, either. I think it responds to what those who can influence it say, and the motives for what anyone says to it are never totally selfless altruism. We want 3650 for our enrichment. But with that enrichment comes competitive services that benefit our customers. One wit once said that democratic self governance is the worst form of governance, save all the rest, and many other parallels have been drawn by wiser folks than me. I'd restate it to say that free enterprise is the worst form of delivering necessities... except for any other form that's been invented so far. So while it's easy to knock and criticise the jumble we call our cellular and internet providing system, there's simply not a real better alternative. Over this period I think I've become more and more against this as I assess how this has left the US and our airways. In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even though it's the same frequency. I could not disagree more. There's nothing more frustrating than being stuck with a one technology must fit and serve for all set of rules. I LEFT
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal standard do for us? Aren't all the toilet paper rolls the same width for your roller? Donn't all the toilets mount in the same size base fitting? :-) How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility, that Europe will switch should we invent something far better than GSM? Size creates inertia. Inertia and mass create friction and friction resists movement. Oh, contrair. With the size of the worldwide GSM there is lots of momentum behind its evolution. GPRS happened and was available in the same time-frame as US based 21/2G solutions. Next, GSM is migrating to WCDMA (the standard version of the EVDO's we're seeing being deployed around here). But what's the chances of getting every nation of the EU to move, other than minor evolutionary movements with full backward compatibiilty, for some time to come? WCDMA is hardly a minor evolutionary movement. GSM is essentially switching from a 300KHz or so TDMA to a 5MHz CDMA (as I said, it looks very much like the EVDO's you see deployed around here). Every nation in the EU, and for that part, most every other nation on the planet that adopted GSM will move. They enjoy the benefits of price that only come from the power of volume manufacturing far beyond any non-standard US specific technology. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. Yes, very exciting indeed. I worked for a US manufacturer that slid from #1 in world sales down to perhaps #3 in handsets (and off the chart in infastructure) in that very market. All the dominant world manufacturers in cellular today are foreign and riding the GSM world standard. We all know the US has completely lost numerous high technology markets forever. We lost computer memories, automobiles, TVs, VCRs, and cellular (among many others). Behind each lost market is a unique story. In the case of cellular, the fragmentation of the US standards for cellular technology is a direct cause of losing an entire US market. We can all thank the FCC, and a pair of US manufacturers for that. We HAD a standard, a nice, comfy, understood, universal standard for phone service... copper. A user-friendly monopoly phone company that had nice operators and everyone's phone worked like everyone else's. And then the justice department stepped in (circa 1975). Then there were 3 distinct long distance carriers building essentially completely redunant competing networks, where each could (by the law of averages) reap only a third of the customer base of single unified network. Long before wireless, the United States quickly slipped from #1 to behind all other advanced countries which maintained a unified PTT (Postal Telephone Telegraph ... typically government operated in most countries). Again, we quickly slipped from leadership to almost last place among advanced countries in ISDN and other advanced services ... back when ISDN would have still been fast compared to alternatives. Essentially no single company could be profitable enough in a fragmented market to keep the US on the front edge. It's always interesting... Hey, I love this ... it's been near and dear to my heart through about 30 yrs in the industry (I spent almost 10 yrs of it in standards group participation). I don't know how others on the list think of the topic. If we're boring others maybe we should continue any follow-up off-line. cheers, Rich - Original Message - From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:31:23 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote We don't have to agree. I certainly respect differing opinions as long as their from people that seem to know the field. I thought the switch to 2nd gen put up whatever you want was a departure from earlier FCC stand ... when all 1st gen cellular systems would follow the TIA approved AMPS standard. Why do I think the change was not for our best? Because the US manufacturers went from world domination of cellular (you could take your amps phone anywhere in the world), to last place (almost the entire world adopted the GSM standard in the face of the US meltdown in digital cellular standards). So, who set the standard for toilet paper roll size? Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal standard do for us? Oh, wait, you can buy toilet paper in several sizes. Doesn't seem to have caused my posterior a lot of grief, though. Ok, silliness aside, we have some remnant AMPS left, a few vestiges of the old TDMA system and the a couple implementations that are CDMA, and then IDEN. Oh, yeah, the US flavor of GSM. That's just where I live. How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
I think we've nailed this one. I get the impression you define front edge as greatest market penetration or most sales or most copied. I define it as the being the one that takes off on their own and tries what everyone else is NOT doing. We've found common ground ... in that we recognize that we each want different things. I'm not looking for the most fun, or the fanciest or latest technology or choice to do whatever I want. I define best as what serves the most people at the best price. I further define what I believe is the best decision basis by my government as what best serves the American people and American industry. As you pointed out, sometimes American industries do not correctly perceive what is in their own best interest (they sometimes make poor choices) and they suffer. I agree, shame on them. But I really think it's awful when America loses whole markets ... that's lost jobs ... not just for the manufacturers, but their suppliers, transporters, etc, across the entire American workforce. It doesn't matter whether they're cutting technology or not (while many of these lost markets WERE cutting technology at the time). This has hurt all Americans in so many ways. BTW - While I understand our perspectives differ, the only point I'd challenge in your last reply is: But I would bet that, like WCDMA, the better ideas come from here. No, it didn't. WCDMA is the European Wideband CDMA selected by ETSI for 3rd generation cellular. European standards organizations go out of their way to not intentionally select anything from America. Like all standards bodies, it is moved to what they perceive as to the advantage of its members. And if you think this is evolutionary from GSM/GPRS - WCDMA I don't know what to tell you. I tried to point out the jump in technology that they are bridging in the last post, and to me it's completely revolutionary. regards, Rich p.s. I have to admit that I used to think in complete agreement with your line of argument when I was much younger. I don't know whether you're younger than me or the same age, but for me 30 yrs in industry changed many of my perspectives! :-) - Original Message - From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:01:32 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal standard do for us? Aren't all the toilet paper rolls the same width for your roller? Donn't all the toilets mount in the same size base fitting? :-) Actually, not at all. How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility, that Europe will switch should we invent something far better than GSM? Size creates inertia. Inertia and mass create friction and friction resists movement. Oh, contrair. With the size of the worldwide GSM there is lots of momentum behind its evolution. You confirmed exactly what I said. Evolution. Not revolution. GPRS happened and was available in the same time-frame as US based 21/2G solutions. Next, GSM is migrating to WCDMA (the standard version of the EVDO's we're seeing being deployed around here). But what's the chances of getting every nation of the EU to move, other than minor evolutionary movements with full backward compatibiilty, for some time to come? WCDMA is hardly a minor evolutionary movement. GSM is essentially switching from a 300KHz or so TDMA to a 5MHz CDMA (as I said, it looks very much like the EVDO's you see deployed around here). What's to say it isn't minor? Only that nobody has stepped up to the plate yet with something big? There is no market in Europe for something big, only evolution. That's not good enough for me. Every nation in the EU, and for that part, most every other nation on the planet that adopted GSM will move. They enjoy the benefits of price that only come from the power of volume manufacturing far beyond any non-standard US specific technology. H... I can't find any price benefit. Really, I can't. I've attempted to find the price of airtime and phones in Europe... and all I can find costs more than here. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. Yes, very exciting indeed. I worked for a US manufacturer that slid from #1 in world sales down to perhaps #3 in handsets (and off the chart in infastructure) in that very market. All the dominant world manufacturers in cellular today are foreign and riding the GSM world standard. We all know the US has completely lost numerous high technology markets forever. We lost computer memories, automobiles, TVs, VCRs, and cellular (among many others). Behind each lost market is a unique story. In the case
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
Impressive list of QA. Not an issue, but I think the Questioner was asking about a different topic than the answerer was thinking of on one question. I added the Q A to make it clear: Q Are there any known problems with over-polling an AP with SNMP? A We do not use polling. In our view it is less efficient than our implementation. I believe the questioner was thinking about a recent thread regarding Canopy where a couple wisps surprising observations were being discussed relative to the product's recent major OS replacement release by Motorola (Release 8). In the thread someone observed that his network traffic appeared to slow down when his network management application began polling radios by SNMP. Continuous ping window times climbed in curious coincidence with network manager performance polling. That's why from the langugage (and mention of SNMP) I don't think he was referring to polling as a means of bandwidth allocation between APs SMs. Changing OS (and consequently stacks) is a significant change. There was a previous list of Canopy problems attributable to the OS communications stacks that could not be addressed because the license for the stacks did not provide source to the Canopy developers. Ultimately a change to a different OS license (where all communications stacks were provided with source) was needed so that the developers had the means to work on problems that had been long unaddressed. Motorola beta tested this Release 8 longer than typical because of the major impact such a change could potentially create. However, it was eventually released (very recently), and some strange stack behaviors have begun to be noticed. If I'm interpreting correctly this is a very different question, indeed. It likely has to do with how APs and BH units prioritize responding to management communications over customer traffic. It might even involve issue with the number of threads the OS can support. The questioner is simply wondering if others have noticed known problems with SNMP polling of APs. Canopy may have some issue, which could be significant to a wisp if he's become reliant upon network performance monitoring (which is a good thing IMO). Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... I found this thread interesting. Enjoy, marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers... So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are modifications to the APs FCC legal? No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!) How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable? What would a SA show the channel width to be? Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will adjust automatically. What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without reflector, with? The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles. Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist in the network development of Canopy products? There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of opportunity for direct consultation. Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing? In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.) Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that allocated, how true are those figures? Is the allocation dynamic? Can you mix breeds of SM on the AP? VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees, but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates
Re: [WISPA] tower climbing
I just keep looking at that picture as if there's something I'm not getting. I can see pegs going down the left leg backmost leg below you, and pegs going up the right leg above you. What seems wierd is that the parallel braces below you and above you do not look parallel to each other right where you are crossing. Am I seeing things? Rich - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it. You just gotta get balls of steel and slide over. Down one cross member and up another. We do it all the time. BTW: Be careful... :-) -B- Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a new tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft without any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more difficult. I believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 legs. The issue is there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft level... then the pegs start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the top. Getting from one leg to another at the 80ft level is the challenge. As you can see from the picture, the gap from the top brace to the bottom brace is almost 10feet in the center (I am 6'1). http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to leg movements across the braces? Thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.
I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the others. There's a reason you haven't seen these products here. I began searching for why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this list. I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the United States. There's a reason for this too ... I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it. With such a connection, wisps must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging the chances of new products emerging). Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users. They authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these microwave users to clear the band. Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took since it wasn't there money. Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees. Check out http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html. Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the United States! IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product. Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front. With the lack of products, UTAM has amassed a huge debt. The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more than enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in the United States. Just my opinion, Rich - Original Message - From: Ralph To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system with 450 handsets several years ago. The phones were single line units made by Phillips. They system worked OK, but the features were very lacking. The frequency range was 1880-1900 MHz This deployment was in Paris, France and was connected behind a PBX. There were about 21 base stations, each one capable of supporting many conversations. The DECT system is interesting because it is the standard in Europe and people's home handsets could be registered on this system. All I had to do was enter the code # into the management system. We were afraid that the handsets might begin disappearing due to the interoperability, but these handsets were so cheesy that the home models were much better. The DECT system did handoff calls as the users walked between base stations, which was pretty cool. A year or so aqo, DECT was authorized here in the US, on slightly different frequencies: 1920-1930 MHz. There was not any general hoopla at all around this introduction. DECT isn't GSM, but the two are made to be very compatible and in Europe, there are dual mode DECT/GSM phones. These systems, which are sometimes used in installations like mine, allow the user to switch over to a more cost-effective DECT connection when in range, and the GSM signaling is passed over to the DECT system, but in DECT format. I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the others. It should eliminate all WISP interference for sure! Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:54 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. All, I am sure some of you have already thought of this but I would suggest a great alternative to avoid interference with the most common frequencies used to deploy wireless networks would be to use DECT cordless phones in the house. They use the 1.9Ghz frequency and are relatively inexpensive. We use a DECT phone system here with all the features we could ever ask for and we got them for a song after the rebate. Just a thought. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.
Did you look at the UTAM URL? The fee until recently was $20 per device A market killer if I've ever seen one, especially when the manufacturing cost of a simple home phone is in that range! We'll see if this changes now that the UTAM prices have gone down. My thoughts is that the window of opportunity has long passed (there's no up front fee to continue making products only for the 900, 2.4, 5GHz UL bands that we wished they'd stop using). What exactly is a manufacturer's incentive to switch to 1.9GHz where there's a stiff UTAM fee? I used to work for a very, very, very large US manufacturer, and all UL business phone development in 1.9GHz have long ago (years ago) been permenantly cancelled to my best knowledge. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. $50K up front and 50 cents a device to control an entire band in the US sounds like a pretty cheap deal to me. I am surprised nobody jumped on that. I do not see that as too much to pay and I am very surprised this did not take off. I hate it when opportunity is right in front of my face and I am too blind to see it! Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the others. There's a reason you haven't seen these products here. I began searching for why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this list. I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the United States. There's a reason for this too ... I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it. With such a connection, wisps must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging the chances of new products emerging). Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users. They authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these microwave users to clear the band. Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took since it wasn't there money. Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees. Check out http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html. Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the United States! IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product. Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front. With the lack of products, UTAM has amassed a huge debt. The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more than enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in the United States. Just my opinion, Rich - Original Message - From: Ralph To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system with 450 handsets several years ago. The phones were single line units made by Phillips. They system worked OK, but the features were very lacking. The frequency range was 1880-1900 MHz This deployment was in Paris, France and was connected behind a PBX. There were about 21 base stations, each one capable of supporting many conversations. The DECT system is interesting because it is the standard in Europe and people's home handsets could be registered on this system. All I had to do was enter the code # into the management system. We were afraid that the handsets might begin disappearing due to the interoperability, but these handsets were so cheesy that the home models were much better. The DECT system did handoff calls as the users walked between base stations, which was pretty cool. A year or so aqo, DECT was authorized here in the US, on slightly different frequencies: 1920-1930 MHz. There was not any general hoopla at all around this introduction. DECT isn't GSM, but the two are made to be very compatible and in Europe, there are dual mode DECT/GSM phones. These systems, which are sometimes used in installations like mine, allow the user to switch over to a more cost-effective DECT connection when in range, and the GSM signaling is passed over to the DECT system, but in DECT format. I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi handset systems, etc that are getting
Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.
Check out www.utam.org. They really do a fairly good job of describing why they were created, what they did, and what companies desiring to use the cleared spectrum must do (pay). Whenever the topic of trying to understand the 1.9GHz spectrum that the FCC allocated for UL use, this is an important piece of the puzzle. It's simply not as simple as the FCC allocated spectrum for UL at 1.9GHz but nobody wanted to use it. I don't have a link for UPCS usage rules. I asked sources I trust (that worked on, but later abandoned UPCS product development). They tell me the usage rules are a minimal must listen before talking play-nice. That doesn't seem overly restrictive to me. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. Do you have a link to the rules governing how this spectrum can be used, how it is licensed, who you have to pay what to use it, etc.? I would like to research this in more detail. Is this opportunity still available or is this spectrum now gone elsewhere? Is this what DECT is using? Did they pay the fees? I am trying to understand all the issues being discussed here and feel I am missing important facts. Thank you, Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: Did you look at the UTAM URL? The fee until recently was $20 per device A market killer if I've ever seen one, especially when the manufacturing cost of a simple home phone is in that range! We'll see if this changes now that the UTAM prices have gone down. My thoughts is that the window of opportunity has long passed (there's no up front fee to continue making products only for the 900, 2.4, 5GHz UL bands that we wished they'd stop using). What exactly is a manufacturer's incentive to switch to 1.9GHz where there's a stiff UTAM fee? I used to work for a very, very, very large US manufacturer, and all UL business phone development in 1.9GHz have long ago (years ago) been permenantly cancelled to my best knowledge. Rich - Original Message - From: John Scrivner To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. $50K up front and 50 cents a device to control an entire band in the US sounds like a pretty cheap deal to me. I am surprised nobody jumped on that. I do not see that as too much to pay and I am very surprised this did not take off. I hate it when opportunity is right in front of my face and I am too blind to see it! Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the others. There's a reason you haven't seen these products here. I began searching for why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this list. I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the United States. There's a reason for this too ... I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it. With such a connection, wisps must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging the chances of new products emerging). Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users. They authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these microwave users to clear the band. Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took since it wasn't there money. Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees. Check out http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html. Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the United States! IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product. Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front. With the lack of products, UTAM has amassed a huge debt. The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more than enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in the United States. Just my opinion, Rich - Original Message - From: Ralph To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues. I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system with 450 handsets several years ago. The phones were single line units made by Phillips. They system worked OK, but the features were
Re: [WISPA] Vonage
I didn't find anything that listed the patents in question. Most were only business articles, but one article did summarized the patent topics. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060619-1055-vonage-verizonsuit.html Verizon charged that Vonage is infringing on at least seven of its patents regarding Internet phone service, a technology known as voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP. The patents include inventions related to gateway interfaces between a packet-switched and circuit-switched network, billing and fraud detection, call services such as call forwarding and voicemail and methods related to Wi-Fi handset use in a VoIP network, the lawsuit said. BTW - cursory search at http://www.uspto.gov/ lists Verizon as receiving 57 issued patents in total since 2001. It's not a huge number if you were inclined to search to see what they got granted that matched the topics listed in the article above. All issued patents are public record and can be downloaded from uspto. The trick is narrowing down the list (or finding the issued numbers for the patents in question). Does anyone know where to find the court actions? That would surely list the patent numbers at issue. Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM Subject: [WISPA] Vonage What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that effect the future? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vonage
Outstanding find! I checked out the summary you posted on your site. Equipped with patent numbers I know how to access them from uspto well enough ... and they're free (have almost 40 issued under my name). I can fully understand how a company can independently develop and use an algorithm that another company has patented (the finding that the infringement was not willful). However, I've been in the industry long enough to know that you got'ta check before you ship a product if you intend to compete with big fish that take IPR seriously. Only a newbie (completely unfamiliar with the concept of IPR) could make such an eggregious error (which should indicate as well as anything that Vonage is, in fact, newbie). Never used pacer. Looked it up (http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/) and it looks interesting. I'd love to read the verdict just for interests sake. Do you need a separate email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as your post reads? Rich - Original Message - From: Peter R. To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vonage I tracked down the patents and the verdict. I had to dig through PACER and pay about $4 to get it (you pay for every page that you query on PACER. To register you have to give a valid credit card). Details here: http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-106-cv-00682-cmh-brp.html If you want a copy of the verdict, email me your name and contact info and I'll send you the 28 pages of techno-babble as opined by U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - see Info is in the name :) Rich Comroe wrote: I didn't find anything that listed the patents in question. Most were only business articles, but one article did summarized the patent topics. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060619-1055-vonage-verizonsuit.html Verizon charged that Vonage is infringing on at least seven of its patents regarding Internet phone service, a technology known as voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP. The patents include inventions related to gateway interfaces between a packet-switched and circuit-switched network, billing and fraud detection, call services such as call forwarding and voicemail and methods related to Wi-Fi handset use in a VoIP network, the lawsuit said. BTW - cursory search at http://www.uspto.gov/ lists Verizon as receiving 57 issued patents in total since 2001. It's not a huge number if you were inclined to search to see what they got granted that matched the topics listed in the article above. All issued patents are public record and can be downloaded from uspto. The trick is narrowing down the list (or finding the issued numbers for the patents in question). Does anyone know where to find the court actions? That would surely list the patent numbers at issue. Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM Subject: [WISPA] Vonage What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that effect the future? -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vonage
What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip ... Many thanks to Peter, who supplied all the specifics of the patents in question. Interesting reading. ... and how does that effect the future? I read the public announcement from Vonage issued the same day as the injunction. Basically, it sounds like they have no intention of obeying the court order. They state their intention to continue service until they get a chance to request a stay of the injunction (in about 2 weeks), and further that they have no intention of halting service as required by the injunction should their request for a stay be denied (which they say they'd then appeal). Stay tuned for that next hearing in 2 weeks. Vonage press release: Vonage Enjoined; Company Expresses Confidence in Obtaining Stay and in Appeal and Ability to Deliver Uninterrupted Service to Customers HOLMDEL, N.J., March 23, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- The U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. today issued an order enjoining Vonage from using certain VoIP technology named in its patent litigation with Verizon. The order is not immediately effective, however, and Vonage is confident its customers will see no change in their phone service. The court announced its intent to hear stay argument in two weeks' time. At that time, the court intends to render a decision regarding the stay, as well as making the injunction effective. If the court denies the stay, Vonage will seek a stay through appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals. Vonage is confident it will be able to obtain a stay through appeal. We are confident Vonage customers will not experience service interruptions or other changes as a result of this litigation, said Mike Snyder, Vonage's chief executive officer. The company has drafted its notice of appeal of the March 8 jury verdict and will file that notice at the appropriate juncture in the court proceedings. Our fight is far from over, Snyder said. We remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue vigorously contending in federal appeals court - and that Vonage will ultimately prevail in this case. Snyder continued, Despite this obvious attempt by Verizon to cripple Vonage, the litigation will not stop Vonage from continuing to provide quality VoIP service to our millions of customers. Our appeal centers on erroneous patent claim construction, and we remain confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue to vigorously assert in federal appeals court, said Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal officer and secretary. Vonage relied on open-standard, off-the-shelf technology when developing its service. In fact, evidence introduced in court failed to prove that Vonage relied on Verizon's VoIP technology, and instead showed that in 2003 Verizon began exploring ways to copy Vonage's technology, she added. The company is focused on growing its business by investing in the rollout of new technology and features, and continuing to grow its customer base. Vonage's accomplishments continue to validate its business model and strategy. The company has achieved 19 consecutive quarters of double-digit revenue growth, doubled revenues to $607 million in 2006 alone, and added nearly 1 million net subscriber lines last year. - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM Subject: [WISPA] Vonage What patents did Vonage infringe upon. What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that effect the future? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that right now... or even 3-5 years from now. Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Yeah, that's it! Naw it's not. I shouldn't be embarassed to tell the truth. The 48 display is the lowest tech thing in the livingroom. It's an almost 10yr old Toshiba rear-projection TV, and the PC simply uses a TV out. So when Sam Tetherow says the stuff that uses 1/10th of the bandwidth are not made to be displayed on a 42 HD monitor, he's correct ... but Slingbox, LocationFree, and BeyondTV compressed recordings look just fine to me (about the same as analog cable looked). Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV It wouldn't happen to be this one: http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower pricing, so I can buy 2. George Rich Comroe wrote: I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich - Original Message - From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account automatically anyway. (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone service or TV service to something different, I can. (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed (50% utilization of the 500 subs
Re: [WISPA] ot OE links
Many Microsoft programs use common routines to provide functions (so they don't replicate them in each program). These show up as SVCHOST in the task-manager, and perform a variety of functions such as right-click menus, launching windows, opening links, etc. Some 3rd party applications have been known to interfere with windows ability to launch SVCHOST routines, causing a variety of seemingly unrelated maladies; what you reported being just one. It ain't difficult to figure out if an application is interfering with windows SVCHOST operation (and which one) but typically simply uninstalling the interfering program returns windows operation to normal. Had this happen to me, and it was as simple as uninstalling a paint program (Micrografix picture publisher 10) ... but figuring out that this application had a conflict was the hard part. Rich - Original Message - From: Pete Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot OE links There is a reg hack to fix that, but the easiest way I have found is to install or reinstall a browser (thunderbird or opera or whatever). When it finishes, and launches for the first time, it will ask if its the default browser, say yes. You can change back to IE or whatever, but the registry settings that say open http://whatever.whatever; to open in a browser will get rewritten and reset when you do that. pd Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, My laptop will no longer go to a link when clicked on via email. In OE if I click on a link it won't go there unless I copy and paste the link into a browser. I have a customer with that problem too. I'll be darned if I can find the setting that got changed to cause it. Any ideas? thanks marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NO new customers for VONAGE
I think the message for the rest of the VoIP industry is: You're next Maybe true, but I have a different opinion. The ruling included an explicit list of the algorithms that infringed on Verizon (shout out thanks go to Peter for these). It's clear that you can build VoIP service without infringement ... but Vonage didn't ... not because it had to intentionally use the Verizon algorithms, but because it didn't know any better (because they didn't know enough to check for IPR). Vonage will be infringement free as soon as they re-engineer their service (and open for new business) ... and you know they'll be re-engineering at full-steam. Depending on how quickly they got started (presumably they've already been working full-steam since the initial infringement lawsuit was filed) it could be up and running within months (or less). Small fish will never be gone after by Verizon, and hopefully the open-source project VoIP solutions are IPR infringement free (or will soon be ... having been awakened to the implications of IPR by this ruling). I think the real message for the rest of the VoIP industry is that the big players (both manufacturers and operators) religiously protect their IPR, and if you want to compete (meaning: grow large) you better pay attention. Vonage's crime was complete total ignorance of the law of IPR (which we all know is always a very poor legal defense for breaking the law). Rich p.s. On re-reading before hitting SEND I note that I use the IPR acronym without definition ... hopefully the readers here know that IPR means Intellectual Property Rights (meaning patents copyrights). - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] NO new customers for VONAGE I think the message for the rest of the VoIP industry is: You're next George Rogato wrote: Yipes! this is going to really hurt. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_hi_te/vonage_verizon_suit I wonder what this means for the rest of the voip industry... -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WalMart and the Three Great RFID Lies
Saw this in Network World and thought of the recent WalMart RFID thread on this list. Enjoy. Rich - Wal-Mart and the Three Great RFID Lies by Yankee Ingenuity, Howard Anderson The Three Great Lies used to be: My wife doesn't understand me; I'm from corporate and I'm here to help you; and ... I forget the third. What are the Three Great RFID Lies? The last time I counted, more than 65 venture-backed companies were committed to RFID technology. Assume a $20 million investment in each, and that's $1.3 billion invested in RFID. Each company submitted a business plan that essentially said: RF1D is going to be the next great multibillion dollar market (Lie No. 1); every company that sells to Wal Mart will be required to use RFID tags (Lie No. 2, though this remains to be seen); and Wal-Mart is strongly behind RF1D (Lie No.3). RFID is a technology in search of a problem. There isn't a single industry standard yet, who knows how many vendors will be around in five years, and the RFID tags and readers are less than foolproof. The technology is young, and investments now could be obsolete or leapfrogged. Consumers see no benefit in RFID and perhaps some loss of privacy Retailers feel RFID may discourage theft, but its cost effectiveness has not yet been proven. Where does this leave Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart will sell $350 billion in merchandise this year. Each Wal-Mart supercenter sells 120,000 different items, and there are more than 2,200 supercenters and more than 3,000 stores in all. For some companies, such as Procter Gamble,Wal-Mart accounts for 15% of their business. It is the category leader in clothing, toys and a half dozen other areas, and is the largest private employer in the United States and Mexico. Among American families, 93% shop at Wal Mart at least once a year and 100 million Americans make a trip there weekly Wal-Mart is the monster from Arkansas, and mere mortal companies tremble when it makes a directional statement about where its technology is moving. Wal Mart convinced its suppliers to migrate to RF1D with the promise of great cost savings that they could share. RFID was supposed to replace bar coding, but putting a bar code on a package costs nothing. Putting on an RFID tag costs 15 cents, and then you need all the ancillary technology and software. Wal-Mart made its top 600 suppliers implement the program with the promise that nothing was going to stop it. The plan was to have all of Wal-Mart's 120 distribution centers eventually up and running. To date, just five are. Here's what happens: Wal-Mart hypes the technology It uses the carrot and stick with its suppliers: This is in your best interest is the carrot, and Aren't we in a wonderful partnership? is the stick. Wal-Mart never expects to actually pay for the tags, the software or the development. It convinces its suppliers this cost should be borne by them and will make them more profitable. The hype leads to investment money coming into the market, which creates an oversupply of vendors -- all of whom fight for market share and continually drop their prices and delay their profitability. Remember that great Peanuts cartoon where Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick and then swipes it away as he falls on his rear? And Lucy says, See you here next year! Wal Mart wasn't the first company to play this game -- General Motors was. Many years ago, GM was pushing its Manufacturing Automation Protocol on every computer vendor, and demanding this was a key decision criterion for future IT purchases. This took tons of time and even more money. Everyone was on board -- except GM, which wasn't even committed to the protocol at the car making level. This was the one level that really counted; it was one or two crazies in the IT department who were on the ultimate power trip. When you're a supplier dealing with Wal Mart, there's going to be a lot of blood on the floor -- and it's going to be yours. Suppliers will never criticize their biggest customer, but most don't expect to ever see a return on their RFID investment and suspect Wal-Mart hasn't achieved its hoped for savings. This doesn't mean suppliers haven't spent millions building out their facilities to handle RFID and are still waiting for Wal Mart to expand the program and pass along some of these illusionary savings to them. In the meantime, wanna kick the football, Charlie Brown? I promise I won't pull it away this time. Anderson is the founder of The Yankee Croup and YankeeTek, and a cofounder of Battery Ventures. He lectures on technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and speaks on technology subjects at meetings across the country He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
[WISPA] Vonage wins temporary reprieve against signing up new customers
Latest New Vonage news from yesterday: Vonage CEO resigns, cost-cutting moves planned contains the interesting quotation: ... on Friday it won a temporary reprieve from a court order prohibiting it from signing up new customers ... at least until April 24 when the next hearing occurs. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/041207-vonage-ceo-resigns-cost-cutting-moves.html?t51hbcompany= Which Verizon patents did Vonage violate? The Verizon patents at issue cover technology for transferring voice calls, supporting features such as call waiting, and providing wireless handset support for VoIP customers. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/041007-verizon-patents-vonage.html?t51hbcompany= Rich -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
I agree Mark's post was extremely well said, and insightful. To me, it's like Yellowstone wildlife management. Once it became a national park the park management (people) said we need to manage the wildlife. They did this, then 10 years later they did that, then 10 years later they did something else, etc. All the while it was painfully obvious that it was unnecessary for people to manage natural wildlife. Yet they continued, each policy meant to repair or undo the damage of the previous one. I immensely enjoy the programs that reflect back on 100 years of park management that look a tale of one one blunder after another ... everything they seek to fix were problems they created. The underlying truth is that many things like a free marketplace operate quite fine when left alone. Once people (read: government) interferes they sometimes cannot help but be disruptive by whatever they do ... because intruding was never the right thing to do in the first place. I think the basic need to intrude in the broadband marketplace stems from a long line of federal government intrusion into telecommunications 30 years ago, and it's yet to do anything for the citizenry of our country that hasn't been harmful (all the way back to Judge Green). But that's as far as I go feeling gov should butt out. I'm a strong advocate that gov should set standards for interoperability for each band for the public good of the citizenry of our country. So I'm not anti-gov, just feel in some areas like trying to manage industries they should excuse themselves ... forever. But gov does do many important things for us all, and I believe the FCC has an absolutely vital role to perform. I just wish they would do better where I think they bear a responsibility, and abandon meddling where I think they shouldn't have ever interfered. Rich - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Mark, This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. At 3070 words, it must have taken you all night to write, but I appreciate the time you put into it and your opinions are well stated. I believe this is a must read for anyone wanting to get a real-life picture of our industry and it's challenges. There is definitely room for more radical views to be heard. I'm sure others will disagree or dispute some of the opinions you have stated but that's ok. This will create some great discussion. As a board member of WISPA, it is our duty to reflect and consider all opinions of the members of our association. We need to weigh all opinions and guide policy direction as the majority sees fit. While we may not always take your side in some matters, we do so in what we interpret as the best course for the future of the industry. Does that mean we don't listen? Heavens no! This is the great part of group efforts, molding peoples ideas into a negotiated platform that is livable by as many of us as possible would be our necessary goal. It is a balancing act sometimes to represent the membership while maintaining a respectful front with the FCC and legislators who have the power to make the laws and policies which police our industry. WISPA can be radical at times, but we also need to temper our views somewhat to maintain a respectful image with those who make the decisions. Again, I appreciate your comments! Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition Of coures it's flawed. That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip code x has the same. I don't offer service via zip code. I offer service via where my signal reaches. And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it DOES NOT reach. Or...well, it didn't at first. The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is... absurd. We all know that. I know people who won't even pay for dialup. The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons why I'd want to know. But why would the mayor of my town, for instance, want to know? What public purpose would be served by expending resources to find out? None, that I can actually think of. Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies. There is no actual need OF ANY KIND to know the number. If 27 percent of the population has broadband available, is there some kind of crisis? What if it's 80%? what if
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
I've found your posts articulate, intelligent, and often very insightful. I agree with many of things you write. But I can't help but disagree with literally everything you've said here in this post. I'd spent nearly a decade representing a large corporation in public coordination functions with the rest of the wireless industry at large, and government. True, you learn to not believe anything anyone ever says on its face, but if you're successful in what you do you dig for the true motive of everyone. You also learn that the public good is very often served by concensus, even if it's expressed through regulation. It's unfortunate that much of regulation is not an expression of anything but the voice of who has the most money influence. The responsible thing is to play to make it better (spoken as one who tried), but that hardly ever equates to burn it all down. Can you really find no redeeming qualities in anything expressed thru your government? Respectfully, Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even Ok, now that I stopped snickering... Rich, we're not that far apart... but the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know, but often just don't really want to address. That being the obvious outcomes vs the ideal we want. vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. That's the nature of government for you. The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here. That's why I state things like government being lethal. That's its nature, that's just how things are. You people keep confusing that with the notion of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get and keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and responsible government. Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it comes to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our business, our services, or our ability to do either. It is the very nature of government and the governed to be adversarial. I know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not partisan. It's just the nature of the beast, as they say. Anyone who thinks that we must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air. Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant, we WILL get trod into oblivion. That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of the 1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills. If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators the ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid pro quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all despise. Most of them would rather have something good to say and do something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
A very good respectable attitude. I agree with you whole heartedly that FCC (and justice dept policy) has badly damaged our own wireless and wired telecommunications industries in this country (which for so long led the entire planet). That doesn't make them evil ... it just means they've done a bad job at balancing the needs of the country with the politics influence that have dominated the last few decades. I've observed over many years that the positions advocated with money influence from major business's are often not in the interests of the country (or even themselves!). Like most things it's a fault of leadership, not of the institutions. We all need to keep our eyes on them as you so appropriately described. Like everything else in politics, if you don't vote you get the government you deserve. The same goes with the institutions that influence our industry ... the industry has to participate! Those that serve wispa deserve a lot of credit. It's tough to participate as a volunteer beyond the scope of the work necessary to run your own businesses. Hell, many of the years I worked for Moto it was my paid full-time job to participate in whatever industry forum or government committee they saw fit. It's really tough when it's your own time, expense, motivation. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Rich, You make a good point. As a child, it was easy for me to understand the ideals that I was taught but it was harder for me to see and to understand what was really going on behind the scenes - behind the political curtain so to speak. Now, as an adult, it's become painfully obvious to me how intertwined politics and business really are. They are so intertwined that they appear (to me at least) to be destroying both the financial well-being of our country and the moral leadership that we once believed our country provided in the world. I guess I could say that my eyes have been opened. I now try to watch the FCC and our government at every level (local, state and federal) to try to keep them true to the ideals that I was taught were true and that I still believe they should be upholding. jack Rich Comroe wrote: It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation has existed. It has and always be so. There are many things that could be done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things. Here's where we disagree. Wireless policy cannot be anarchistic (my term ... you always use the terms free market) as you advocate. For industries But we don't disagree... Much. You're mistaking what I'm saying, because you're attempting to read between the lines what isn't there. We don't need to argue this, and this isn't the place for it. But the argument displaces good conversation, which is why I want to address it. where what I choose to do doesn't impact your choices, no problem. Wireless DOES NOT FIT in this class (many other industries don't fit as well, completely unrelated to wireless). Your FREEDOM impacts MY choices. I'm not sure why you think that objecting to badly applied and wrongly written regulation impacts your choices. Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. Not really. It has taken upon itself, for better or for worse ( that's not even the point of the argument, so let's not get bogged in it) the task of regulating radio spectrum. That doesn't mean it has to regulate the industry... Just the use of the spectrum for the best outcome it can figure out how to do. Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless) and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. I know we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but those are just protections of free markets, not regulation of industries. had previous threads where we respectfully disagree on this. You see free market as the best for everyone, and I know how painfully untrue this often is. Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect your yes. Absolutely. opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know from your own career experiences that this has never really been true under all circumstances. But then again, a lot of people in Wash/Ore apparently seem willing to believe this fantasy. huh? I live in the socialist state of Oregon, where dang near everyone wants the nanny state, and believes in centralized control of every damn thing. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us. No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these will get elected and re-elected. All this does is limit the power of those NOT in power to speak to the people. Every time someone tries to limit this, it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power. Money is not the problem. The problem is that we have allowed goverment to do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop. Poll this list, and you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE parts of our economy than they have already. Health care being one. Gee, we whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about giving it EVEN MORE control and power. Government is not the source and stem of all evil. Thinking in competitive free market terms, we have a fairly good government compared to most which are much worse. That doesn't make it the perfect, and money/power is the evil. I agree with Jack on this. Money/power/influence are the things that make government act against the best interests of the country ... it's not government itself that's the source of evil. Huh... I guess I can only state this in my
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
- Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC Justin... I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk to each other via voice radio. I would tend to agree that frequency coordination seems to be a terrible issue. The cited reasons for this was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO hurricane problems. Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities. They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside perception, at least. Your outside perceptions are completely wrong. But as far as I can tell, this isn't about talking to each other, it's about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps? If you're not sure what the broadband network is for, how could you have already called the plan absurd? I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else. A lack of spectrum doesn't seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications problems. Completely wrong. Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters. I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ??? I wouldn't begin to know where to start to explain it to you. I don't believe you have any notion whatsoever of what the issues and challenges are of public safety communications that are being addressed. If you wanted to learn, you could start with the PSWAC report ... it's public and on-line. But what amazed me is how you conclude with no knowledge that the public safety broadband communications plans are absurd and can't possibly work. Why would you jump out and slam a field that you know nothing about? Yet you wonder where people get the notion from that you're anti-gov. Why not just say excuse me on that one and we'll move on. Rich - Original Message - From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... (sigh). This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd. Why would you say this? I served on the technology committee that drafted the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the FCC/NTIA. The initiative was a response to the first world trade center bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their radios. In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic. A nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical as the cleanest solution to the dilema. Of course, little improved following the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation -- and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC. Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed, because it'll be down or something. Why would you say this? Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles. In fact, I've heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than for losing his gun! Any failure of a public safety communications radio network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event. Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
. I wish that had been part of the plan but that does not mean I do not support the interests of public safety. It only means I would have liked to be part of the plan. Especially when so many of us WERE part of the plan in the post-Katrina efforts where we delivered when many others did not. Rich, is the plan for public safety to use IP based communications in this band? If not then why not? What is the plan? Will other interests like private or muni broadband be able to use the spectrum when public safety is quiet? If not then why not? Thanks, Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC Justin... I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk to each other via voice radio. I would tend to agree that frequency coordination seems to be a terrible issue. The cited reasons for this was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO hurricane problems. Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities. They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside perception, at least. Your outside perceptions are completely wrong. But as far as I can tell, this isn't about talking to each other, it's about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps? If you're not sure what the broadband network is for, how could you have already called the plan absurd? I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else. A lack of spectrum doesn't seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications problems. Completely wrong. Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters. I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ??? I wouldn't begin to know where to start to explain it to you. I don't believe you have any notion whatsoever of what the issues and challenges are of public safety communications that are being addressed. If you wanted to learn, you could start with the PSWAC report ... it's public and on-line. But what amazed me is how you conclude with no knowledge that the public safety broadband communications plans are absurd and can't possibly work. Why would you jump out and slam a field that you know nothing about? Yet you wonder where people get the notion from that you're anti-gov. Why not just say excuse me on that one and we'll move on. Rich - Original Message - From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive opportunity, and instead, settle for some money... (sigh). This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd. Why would you say this? I served on the technology committee that drafted the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the FCC/NTIA. The initiative was a response to the first world trade center bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their radios. In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic. A nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical as the cleanest solution to the dilema. Of course, little improved following the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz allocation
Re: [WISPA] Posting limits?
From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] One more thing, If you haven't watch/listened to it yet (do it twice): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 What a terrific link! Perfectly appropriate! At times LMAO because of how true the lessons are when applied to some of the threads and posters on this list. It's perfect how you didn't disclose the title ... that came as such an appropriate surprise when I opened the link. Everyone should view it (and do it twice just as you suggest). But for everyone who might not have taken the link, the title is How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People (And You Can Too). Doesn't have to be an Open Source Project for it to be applicable. You don't have to view it all ... but everyone should at minimum view the section on list-server behavior. I give it 2 thumbs up. Rich - Original Message - From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Posting limits? On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:07 -0500, John Scrivner wrote: Is anyone else getting tired of sorting through the exhaustive amount of email we are getting on the public list? Much of it is good stuff but I think we see some people who are posting more than we need to all see. I am thinking we should consider a post count limit per day per person. I would like to hear feedback on this concept. I think limiting posts would be a last resort fix to the problem. Believe it or not, this is a common problem on almost all email lists. The main problem is a lack of netiquette on this list. Good email manners, would fix the problem. http://www.albion.com/netiquette/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette read Usenet and Email topics This is a list of the common annoyances I see on this list, 1) If you are replying to every message in a thread, STOP, Think, Let others respond, read, then reply. http://www.ryanlangseth.com/~langseth/Email.png 2) DON'T Start a new thread by hitting reply to the last message in another thread and changing the Subject line. It is bad form, and will show up wrong in the mailing list archives and some people's email client (mine). If you want to branch the subject prefix with your new topic and was: eg. Email List Etiquette WAS: Posting Limits? http://www.ryanlangseth.com/~langseth/Email.png 3) Remember this list is public, indexed by google. What you post here, much like MySpace it is going to be around for a very long time. Also remember this list is the public face of Wispa, if we want to _not_ be treated like cowboys by others (Telcos, FCC, Govnmt, etc), don't act like cowboys on the list. 4) DON'T troll. Trolls look for fights, they argue for the sake of arguing, they reduce conversations to personal attacks. One more thing, If you haven't watch/listened to it yet (do it twice): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 Ryan -- InvisiMax System Administrator e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
What a rip! Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint contract. What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract? Why doesn't he just terminate? Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other than unreasonably large download usage). And it's EVDO, so it blows away that measley 125 - 175 kbit. I really think those PCMCIA cards are a rip-off for service cost compared to just getting unlimited data service to your cellphone. I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot lighter and smaller than a laptop yet nearly as capable. Rich - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year. :-p Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think paying you your normal rates would cost less than $1200 to Cingular. Suggest that your unlimited service is still less expensive than overages. Mike Hammett wrote: I have a potential customer that wanted to try out my service. He's got money, so I wasn't afraid he was looking to get something for nothing. He has Cingular now and can only get 125 - 175 kbit out of it. I clearly can provide a faster less latent service for a lower monthly cost (costs him $70/month). Apparently he wasn't on the unlimited rate plan and got hit with a $1200 bill. He doesn't think he can get out of his Cingular. *argh* That said, can anyone think of a way to hookup a standalone fax machine with the Cingular card? I can't contemplate anything at all. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
We ran Skype from our windows phones. Why? Just to see if it'd work as an internet app! :-) Worked fine. Rich - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:38 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular Last I checked, 3G systems have horrible latency, therefore are not good for VoIP. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Pete Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular The $10/mo for web access with Sprint ONLY applies to the use on the phone. When you plug in the data cable, and use it as a modem, its like $0.30/kb. Learning that lesson cost me. The unlimited phone-as-a-modem or data card rate is around $39/mo. Does anyone know if there are drivers/capabilities to link a data card to a Mikrotik or StarOS box? I guess that there are other Linux drivers out there, so my thinking may work. I have considered for some time the possibilities of making a box to mount in my car (car-puter) with a Sprint (or Cingular, or Verizon, or whoever) cellular type data connection, with a WIFI client as the primary (or secondary) mode of connection. With DDNS, access to the dash mounted camera, GPS stream, etc should be easy enough, making it a roll-your-own LowJack type system. Also, in the car, an ethernet jack to plug a laptop into could be nice, as well as opening the possibilities to put in an ATA to make VOIP calls, as well as adding a WIFI AP. $39/mo for unlimited data connectivity, especially if it gives the speed/latency required to do VOIP, seems like a bargain compared to $129/mo for 2000 minutes. I guess a Windows-based system could do all of those things, but the RAM/processor/etc/boot time/bluescreens associated with Windoze don't seem to make it conducive to this type of project, IMO. The car-puter installation plan things that I have read about seem to focus on GPS and MP3 playing. Since my wreck 6 yrs ago, where I couldn't prove to the insurance company (5 eyewitnesses from every direction from the intersection and a police report weren't good enough) that I had the green light. I have been thinking about a car-mounted DVR with cameras in the grill, the dash, and in the back to offer video defense in a car accident claim. Showing the judge, the insurance agent, or whoever a DVD of the video surveillance of the accident could save a lot of time and hassle. What I wish someone would sell for a car (these things probably all exist in one form or another with various systems) is a computer that will act as a: DVR security cam recorder (cam pointed at the driver seat to prosecute the car thief, + cams on bumpers to witness accidents) Data port (ethernet + WIFI AP) Web server (with DDNS support to access the stored data, even when the car is away from the house, like at an impound yard or after being stolen) MP3 player Realtime ODBII scanning/recording/diagnostics of the car. VOIP system. GPS stream recording. (to show he teenage driver when/how fast she was really driving) I would think that these things could all be incorporated for under $2k, mounted in the trunk, and it would be something that would sell like crazy for $3k installed. I guess what I would like is a retail version of this with more features: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/d04305f2dbbf1110vgnvcm104eecbccdrcrd.html pd Rich Comroe wrote: What a rip! Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint contract. What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract? Why doesn't he just terminate? Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other than unreasonably large download usage). And it's EVDO, so it blows away that measley 125 - 175 kbit. I really think those PCMCIA cards are a rip-off for service cost compared to just getting unlimited data service to your cellphone. I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot lighter and smaller than a laptop yet nearly as capable. Rich - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year. :-p Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think paying you your
Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular
server (with DDNS support to access the stored data, even when the car is away from the house, like at an impound yard or after being stolen) MP3 player Realtime ODBII scanning/recording/diagnostics of the car. VOIP system. GPS stream recording. (to show he teenage driver when/how fast she was really driving) I would think that these things could all be incorporated for under $2k, mounted in the trunk, and it would be something that would sell like crazy for $3k installed. I guess what I would like is a retail version of this with more features: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/d04305f2dbbf1110vgnvcm104eecbccdrcrd.html pd Rich Comroe wrote: What a rip! Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint contract. What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract? Why doesn't he just terminate? Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other than unreasonably large download usage). And it's EVDO, so it blows away that measley 125 - 175 kbit. I really think those PCMCIA cards are a rip-off for service cost compared to just getting unlimited data service to your cellphone. I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot lighter and smaller than a laptop yet nearly as capable. Rich - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year. :-p Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think paying you your normal rates would cost less than $1200 to Cingular. Suggest that your unlimited service is still less expensive than overages. Mike Hammett wrote: I have a potential customer that wanted to try out my service. He's got money, so I wasn't afraid he was looking to get something for nothing. He has Cingular now and can only get 125 - 175 kbit out of it. I clearly can provide a faster less latent service for a lower monthly cost (costs him $70/month). Apparently he wasn't on the unlimited rate plan and got hit with a $1200 bill. He doesn't think he can get out of his Cingular. *argh* That said, can anyone think of a way to hookup a standalone fax machine with the Cingular card? I can't contemplate anything at all. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] A Box
http://www.netburnerstore.com/embedded_ethernet_development_p/nndk-mod5270lc-kit.htm $99 includes core module, development board, ac adapter, ethernet cable, crossover cable, serial cable, and software (including a collection of canned applications). Lowest priced hardware I've seen. - Original Message - From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: [WISPA] A Box I need a box. What I want is a 802.11 type box, that has alarm contacts. When the alarm contact is triggered (N/C N/O) then it would send an email. The box would probably have an IP address that would allow it to be connected to the local WISP, as well as a wired connection that could be connected to a router. Maybe a SCADA device. Picture the possiblities. A large manufacturing complex could keep track of all their functions - and security, through a WISP, even geographically diverse locations. Any ideas? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Man fined for stealing WiFi
From the article: - In fact, Milanowski was unaware the practice known as piggybacking was illegal, so his did a bit of legal research. I had a feeling a law was being broken, said Milanowski. He found Michigan's Fraudulent access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks law, a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. - I'm surprised by the law used by the prosecution. About 15 yrs ago I gave expert witness testimony in a similar case in Ohio, but Ohio's law was specific to breaking into a government run computer network. In the Ohio case the computer network being broken into was operated by and for public safety, and there was a clear public safety danger in people breaking in. The person who broke in was intentionally eavesdropping on public safety communications. I felt it was an appropriate and important law, but it's quite doubtful that the coffee shop's wifi could ever be considered a government computer network, even if police may sometimes sit there using it along with other customers. Laws can vary from state to state, but I'm very surprised that any state would apply this law to a public computer network like the Internet that's actually INTENDED for public use. If the Michigan felony law is not specific to government networks I think it should be changed. I think it's wrong for a 5yr felony crime being applied to public wifi. Rich - Original Message - From: Smith, Rick To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Principal WISPA Member List ; WISPA General List ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:46 AM Subject: [WISPA] Man fined for stealing WiFi Precedents are starting :) http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3175 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me
Loved the image. What really amazes me is that you can mail to anywhere in the galaxy for a mere 41 cent first class postage. Rich - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me Haha, don't worry about it. The laughter is worth more than $1. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-June/036509.html http://images.bureau42.com/sa/wispamail.jpg Mike Hammett, your $1 will be there in a couple days. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Your comments couldn't be more appropriate. I'm hearing 3rd hand that Moto just announced on webinar's today that their next firmware release (8.0) will no longer support compatibility with the original Canopy protocol, so original deployed equipment must be replaced. Some unhappy comments appearing on the [Motorola] list. Rich - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Quoting Tom: What often happens, is technical people make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the technology. Man have you hot the nail on the head! Motorola is a company that gets caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio. It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement from the dealer would be do you realize that 80% of our customer base still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would say They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they will tell the customer what they need or what they will be getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great radios. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Interference with TV
I note some of the respondents are thinking satellite. I'm thinking 10baseT or 100baseT bleeding into the household coax distribution. Any chance the ethernet runs alongside the coax for any length somewhere within the home? With cable TV I've seen ethernet put interference on the screen for weak cable stations. Since the sat dish is outside and we're talking wireless Internet coming in from outside too, any chance the ethernet is running along side the coax that feeds the inside satellite decoder? That might be able to take out all TV. Rich - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bill Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:02 AM Subject: [WISPA] Re: Interference with TV Anyone seen a problem like the one below before? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: webmaster To: Bill Dale Cc: Marlon Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Interference with TV Hi Bill, I am copying Marlon on this so he will reply as soon as possible. He is out of the office today. You could try calling him this evening on his cell number, 509-988-0260. Mary Downey Odessa Office/ACCIMA 509-982-2181 - Original Message - From: Bill Dale To: Odessa Office Equip Support Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:41 AM Subject: Interference with TV We have good internet speed most of the time and I am happy with my setup. Occasionally we loose the internet for some reason, and I have to shut off the power to the receiver. This always seems to reset everything. All in all we have been very happy, however lately we have been having a problem which seems to be getting worse as time goes by. Lately, our TV picture becomes pixilated and breaks up, and the sound is also disrupted. It seems to happen anytime. (maybe some program on the computer is accessing the internet?) If someone gets online the TV becomes so bad that at times it is unwatchable. This seems to have become progressively worse over the last two or three weeks. If I turn off the power to our internet antenna, then we have no problem with the TV at all, so I can only presume that the Internet antenna is disrupting the signal that our Dish Network antenna is receiving. The Dish Network antenna is a duel LNB antenna and this problem only occurs on certain channels, so maybe only one LNB is bothered by the internet antenna? Is the internet antenna failing and sending out interference? Is one of the LNB's on the Dish Network antenna failing, or is this just signal interference, and if so, how can we get rid of it? We would like to be able to use the internet at the same time that we are watching TV, so anything you can do to help me would be appreciated. Thanks Bill Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
