usual here in the
northeast; most storms are maybe half that strong. Three or four miles
should be quite reliable; a 10-mile link might be workable if you have a
fallback path, but we haven't done it.
> On 10/14/2013 07:47 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 7:33 PM, Bob Moldashel
ve 30%.
Is there anything we, as ISP's, can do to protect our users
who, for
whatever reason have not, will not or can not upgrade?
I have users who won't spend $$ to replace a working system
if they
don't see a g
usual here in the
northeast; most storms are maybe half that strong. Three or four miles
should be quite reliable; a 10-mile link might be workable if you have a
fallback path, but we haven't done it.
> On 10/14/2013 07:47 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 7:33 PM, Bob Moldashel
rking on
the roof who disturbs it.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
a (AT&T does this with minutes, right?) for those
special occasions (like the Breaking Bad finale), if your software can
handle it. But a bill-based system is easier to implement... at least
if you don't count post-bill customer calls.
I wish there were an easy answer but this
igger antennas. Maybe
those old TV antennas we used to all have before cable will make a
comeback. ;-)
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
esults from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that
running at say MCS1 would improve results? Or is it just not very
sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium?
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisl
@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan 49010
269-686-8648
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
__
but so far that hasn't been granted.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----
*From: *"Fred Goldstein"
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:06:13 PM
*Su
azy fees are a reason to avoid voice services, but
they are a pain to administer. The FCC is terrible about writing clear
rules.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Fred Goldstein <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
On 7/28/2013 12:46 AM, Jeremy wrote:
From what
On 7/28/2013 2:34 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Hi Fred,
on a related note... Neustar sending bills to anyone/everyone filling
out FCC form 499, for LNP system, is that legit ?
Good question. They are allowed to charge for LNP, and the formula for
that is subject to some current arguments
n/listinfo/wireless
_______
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
flaky, re-attaching it to a
new radio might be a temporary fix, but reattaching it to an old radio
might "fix" it too (temporariy). Have you examined the broken radios in
the shop?
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 61
the T1s need
timing, then you may need to supply the timing independent of the
physical layer. The usual way to do this is PWE3, Pseudowire Emulation
over Ethernet, which is what the IPmux does; it's an option in Cisco
(and many other) media gateways too.
--
Fred R. Goldstein
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
0906A1.pdf
But they only start to count Fixed Wireless as a separate category as of
2005. Before that it's lumped in with satellite, but fixed wireless is
the bulk of the mixed wireless category. Oddly, mobile wireless
suddenly goes from almost nothing to huge in 2006. Again
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
>>>
>>> C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072
>>> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
>>> web: http://www.level7.it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___ Wir
t needed or could be turned.
>> Preferably under $200.00 and setup thru a Window interface.
>> Any recommends?
>> Thanx
>> NGL
>> If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
>> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>>
>
--
Fre
r uses
solid dishes with a very tight beam; the signal should be way down at 10
degrees and a meter's spacing. And the transmitted power output is very
low. The only reason I don't think they'd be good on the same frequency
is that a bird or raindrops might reflect some signal b
S yet.
>
> --
> Simon Westlake
> Powercode.com
> (920) 351-1010
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listi
S yet.
>
> --
> Simon Westlake
> Powercode.com
> (920) 351-1010
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listi
rote it So I'm surprised that Vyatta hasn't bothered with
>> it. Cisco is way too expensive. RouterOS boxes on big Intel iron are
>> more capable, though RouterOS can be a bid dodgey at times (as can a lot
>> of other systems).
>>
> Fred,
>
> Which feat
ble they'll be.
VLANing is of no use. That provides a degree of protection against
interception, but no QoS and no protection against DDoS. And it's kind
of ugly. Not that MPLS isn't ugly, but until RINA is ready it can sort
of work.
> Have you ever tried to convince them there
you be running
>> a
>> Cisco or a Juniper?
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 18:06, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>
>>> The software does not do everything that mikrotik's routerOS does.
>>> Where is the MPLS support, something that many people use on
>>> ro
so it wasn't needed there, and it left the west
unserved. ENA (and NTIA) were given several offers to settle, but
turned them down, or pretended to accept them but went ahead anyway.
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Ori
boon-doogle that hurt businesses in
> >> rural Colorado reigned in. Damage was already done, recovery starts.
> >>
> >> Word is the CEO of Eagle-Net has also resigned!!!
> >>
> >> BEST NEWS EVER!!!
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "
ce that's the closest map
speed. They call the map a lower speed "surrogate" for 4/1.
If you think that's a disconnect, just try to get the FCC's Wireline
[prevention of] Competition Bureau to play nice with the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau. Even Abe Lincoln
>Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?
I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst
rate. That won't pass the 4/1 test.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting
aaac!
Correct me if I am wrong here Rick, it will be fruitless to do the
map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down
and 1 meg up. If you service your customer at speeds lower
than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos...
--
Fred Golds
7;d be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from getting it.
If you're on the map with 3/.768, you're probably okay. Those who
are not on the map should follow Rich's advice; there are ways to
make it fairly easy.
On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstei
ation, not confidential. So tell the FCC!
I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of
this. It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and
then the 30 day Comment period begins.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary
At 10/28/2012 07:09 PM, you wrote:
>On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 16:54 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > An article I wrote seven years ago but is still somewhat current
> > (since IPv6 is always five years away ;-) ):
> > IPv6: More Filling, Less Taste http://www.ionary.com/ion-ip
At 10/27/2012 10:44 PM, MikeH wrote:
>Wait, am I disagreeing with Fred? :-p
Yep. ;-) Of course I don't mind disagreeing with the crowd. I'm
curmudgeonly enough.
Anyway, rather than discuss it here on the list, I'll just give a
couple of file pointers.
An article I wrote s
>perfection yet :)
>
>But, I flex, have to let people have their v6 fun (employees and
>customers alike...)
>
>
>Scott Carullo
>Technical Operations
>855-FLSPEED x102
>
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wis
rrier Ethernet is not theirs. It's standardized by
the Metro Ethernet Forum, so the standards have MEF numbers. MEF in
turn largely cites IEEE specs from the 802 family, but assembles
them, with its own touches, into its own packages.
inline comments
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Fred
tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:
At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
>* Fred Goldstein
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com&g
At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
>* Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT. MT has a new CPE router with SFP support. Thi
le routing. It won't compete
with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts.
At 10/13/2012 03:58 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out
> > j
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
> >
> > On 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> >> It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq
> >>
> >> Sent from a Apple Newton
> >
At 10/13/2012 11:27 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
>using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
>Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast
Mike Hammett duly noted,
Fred, I don't think most of the people here understand what YOU'RE
talking about. They think a switch is just a switch and they're all
the same, but that's far from the truth.
Probably true, which is why I'd like to clarify it. Vendors wh
At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>it cannot do.
Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or
cannot be do
At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT. MT has a new CPE router with SFP support. This
> > would be great for a
At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>Could you expand a bit on this? It sounds like you're describing what
>I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you
>setting up per-customer VLANs or something like th
stration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
<http://www.nwwnet.net>www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239
___
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
____
wer of a car's engine
with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio
unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames
transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's
working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of o
on UBNT's radar, though it's a huge
market. Maybe they've noticed how cheap those switches are and just
don't want to compete in that space.
But it's not as if EdgeOS is being written from scratch. Nor were
AirOS or RouterOS. They're all swimming in a GPL pool. The
d
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
<http://www.nwwnet.net>www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239
___
Wireless mailing list
W
e-does-a-great-possum-imitation ISP industry. So it could
have been a lot worse -- the old USF would have funded ILECs to
compete with WISPs anyway, and did so in some locations.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.i
dent Obama was clearly and plainly talking about
highways and schools when he said, "you didn't create that", but by
editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he
pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their
own businesses. You
ad a lie,
he'll spread a real whopper.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
SP
Allegan, Michigan 49010
269-686-8648
A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at&quo
l
>
>
> T H I S I SN O TM I N E.
>
> I A M N O T S E L L I N G I T.
>
> I D O N O T K N O W W H O H A S I T N O W
>
___
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
At 6/29/2012 09:36 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:
>
For those who may have missed it, the petition is here:
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603>http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603
I am sorry if I don't get this right Fred, but I don't b
ard to the Board's response, and if the Petition is open
to Comment from others, it deserves a serious blasting.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701 __
At 6/1/2012 12:38 PM, MarlonS wrote:
>I'm not sure that any sort of CLEC that you are piped into would count Fred.
>That's not facilities based. They are, but the company providing service
>isn't. And the rules specifically state that the voice provider has to be
>fa
off
> > to the USF/CAF recipient.
> >
> > We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2
> > out full count and Casey is at bat.
> >
> > Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by?
> >
of runs, 2
>out full count and Casey is at bat.
>
>Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by?
>
>marlon
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred Goldstein"
>To: "WISPA General List"
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 20
major change -- they
allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information
service, and still get subsidized. That's how they want to "improve"
broadband availability. Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were
active in getting that passed? ;-)
--
Fred Goldste
y collateral damage, because
ISPs depended on them.
Now the FCC has opened up the question of whether and how WISPs and
other ISPs should pay into the Universal Service Fund. So again the
fact that this group is organized should come in handy.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgold
industry's interests are not
hurt. The full notice is here:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/FCC-12-46A1.pdf
--
Fred R. Goldstein fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701
_
industry's interests are not
hurt. The full notice is here:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/FCC-12-46A1.pdf
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
They got word back to the Hill on time and thus concurred with
WISPA and almost everyone else that banning unlicensed would be a bad move.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
poses, just different frequencies and approvals.
On Mar 21, 2012 9:40 PM, "Fred Goldstein"
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:
At 3/21/2012 03:56 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Are both 18Ghz and 11Ghz limited to minimum 2ft dish size?
Just wondering if 1
won't
get you down to a foot. 23 GHz only requires 33.5 dB.
Alex has a good idea to look at 24 GHz unlicensed, if you can find a
fast enough radio. Ohterwise, if you can't deal with higher
frequencies or free space optics, stick with your instinct and go with 23 GHz.
--
rt to medium distance 1 to 6 miles solutions for BH of
100Mbps to 1Gbps.
I need quotes for full installs of these listed hops.
Hop 1: 2 miles
Hop 2: 2.8 miles
Hop 3: 5.6 miles
Hop 4: 2.6 miles
Hop 5: 2.6 miles
Freq can be anything OTHER than 2.4 or 5.8
Please call my Cell listed below.
--
or the
actual antenna. I'd never put stuff on an AM tower. Nor would most
such towers want stuff on them, since it could throw their performance off.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.c
ECs to administer
correctly. So billing disputes are remarkably common. It's easiest,
actually, in a rural area where one local trunk group picks up the
whole local area and a separate (billable) tandem trunk picks up
non-local calls.
On 2/17/2012 10:21 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At
any of their
central offices (via collocation, mid-span fiber meet, or by paying
them for the entrance facility). But toll (inter-LATA) traffic
arrives on trunks into the regional access tandem, and you usually
have to pay for that mileage at fairly high (switched access
transport) rat
, like an Audiocodes Mediant 2000,
and it's managed as a service.
Does that clarify things?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Fred R. Goldstein
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:
The current FCC rules per November's CAF order allow ILECs to be
subs
oesn't yet serve your area, and then
could pull phone number blocks from NANPA.
>Kevin
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred R. Goldstein"
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:57 PM
>Subject: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for "
. The VoIP side of the gateway then
feeds the subscribers.
I'm trying to assess whether it's worth anyone's pursuing to set this
up as an offering for WISPs. Does anyone see a market for this type
of service? Would it help anyone meet the "unsubsidized competitor"
req
able in resale, not
as an operating entity. They can experiment with WiFi on a small
scale, though, and see what kind of business potential it
has. Because it's their own backhaul, the OpEx is minimal.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consu
tream bring traffic in via their
> > circuit to these IPs.
> >
> > Windstream say they are awaiting on AT&T in order to be able to
> > advertise them. Can anyone explain to me why this could be the case?
> > What does AT&T have to
ham band is 3.3-3.5 GHz.
However, ham frequencies of interest to WISPs include 902-928 MHz,
2390-2450 MHz, and 5650-5925 MHz.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.
hen I
got to Cherry County, it showed me "0". That's definitely low-density
rustic. But it rises to a Manhattanesque 145 in Valentine. Well,
maybe Manhattan missing three zeroes. ;-)
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting
s to run
in the 15-30 pop/sqmi range. Of course this is hilly and heavily
forested, making wireless more difficult.
The place I grew up has a density of around 21,000.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting
settling on DECT at 1.9 GHz, reserved for the purpose.)
>On 12/27/2011 5:56 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > What about from the copper pair to the handset?
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Sui
t is a vestige of 1980's XTEN. (Once upon a time, Xerox
wanted to become a Player in telecom. It got the FCC to allocate a
10 GHz band for a PtMP WLL service it wanted to rollout, and it
bought the undersea carrier WUI... and then abandoned the whole thing.)
--
Fred Golds
At 12/15/2011 12:52 PM, Ralph wrote:
>I have found WISPs in Eagle Pass TX and Lake Charles LA.
>But I still need service in Sherman TX and Salisbury MD.
>
>Anyone got any ideas?
Try Internet Texoma (http://www.texoma.net ) for Sherman, TX.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fg
e an application and various forms to fill out. If you're
>>dealing with SES Americom, have fun. I don't know of one that they have
>>approved.
>>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 12/12/2011 11:20 AM, Fred R. Goldstein wrote:
&
Does anyone have a standard letter to use to ask permission from
satellite earth stations to use the 3650 MHz band within the 150 mile
exclusion zone? Thanks.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 61
p-partner-offer-free-broadband-
> > Nothing on their web page yethttp://www.freedompop.com
> >
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
--
F-and-ICC-Order-analysis.pdf
Feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. Your ideas and
feedback are welcome.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
--
At 11/30/2011 03:44 PM, you wrote:
>Oh, and as of April I am officially . . .
>
>Rk
>K6ISP
Good one!
(I pulled my 2-letter call back when you-pick-'ems were free, so
there's no annual fee like on a vanity call. K1IO certainly beats WB2ZJQ.)
--
Fred Goldstein
y ;-) ISTM that
the airport is just east of The Strip. It's possible that one of the
large buildings on the southern part of The Strip is the trouble
spot, maybe a private link that some bozo installed, not a WISP. I
do hope it is tracked down soon.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io
lly a few months apart. Otherwise, Phase 3 rules
aren't firm yet. Once Phase 2 is awarded, it's there for five
years. Phase 3 is likely to have another unsubsidized-competitor
test around 2017. Probably to discuss in the FNPRM, which has a lot
of questions I haven't all read yet
is not really relevant for a lot of WISPs and local ISPs and
CLECs. We serve the areas we serve because that's our
business. It's finance capital that looks for cream areas to
skim. Locals need to be able to operate anywhere. And that's a
problem with some of the FCC rules, which
n subsidizing ILECs
>
>
> > Please explain about the Livingston exchange!!! I have been trying to
> > break
> > this barrier for almost 12 years.
> >
> > Scottie Arnett
> > President
> > Info-Ed, Inc.
> > Electronics and More
> > 931-243-210
na numbers, either, if it
matters. But Livingston has pooled prefix codes available.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
a more granular area basis, they could go considerably
higher. And they'll be for five years of funding, though frankly I'd
prefer just CapEx, since WISPs need capital and big ILECs just need
to pay off their investors.
>I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaini
ired to lease you any network elements. And they don't
like to be, well, too cooperative... but I'd first want to check
with the lawyers to know exactly how much privilege an RTC still has.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting
ireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Fred R. Goldstein
>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:03 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs
>
>On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in
nd) by an unsubsidized carrier, typically
cable. If there is less than 100% overlap, then support will be
reduced, but the actual methodology is left to be determined via the
Further NPRM.
So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
community than it could have, while st
At 11/17/2011 11:00 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not
> > adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-)
>
>Really? Hiding a customer identity behind
At 11/17/2011 07:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of
> > proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP
> > than before, no small i
rcise any editorial control.
In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already,
and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy
help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who
harm ISPs because it's what they do, even
n place for
porting numbers, and some ILECs make it harder than it need be, but
it's doable.
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
-
he link between the VoIP provider
and carrier is not so strong, so the carrier won't go out of their
way if there's a hangup (pun intended) in the process.
I can check the portability status of the number block in question --
what's the number (NPA-NXX-D; I don't need your whol
o buy a lot of
fiber links and want to know who lights what buildings.
They show routes for SDN Communications, Integra, Sprint, and Allied
Fiberin Billings. Plus lit buildings (some carriers don't give NEF
their map layers) for 360, XC, AT&T, and Montana's Advanced Inf (the
full nam
101 - 200 of 474 matches
Mail list logo
