Canopy claimed long and loud about real aggregate throughput. However, last
February Moto put out an application note that discloses real Canopy
aggregate throughput will be significantly less with short packet traffic,
while claiming that real internet traffic would never be short enough to
General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need Inputs From HurricaneReliefWISP Teams
ForFCCPresentation on Thursday
- Original Message -
From: rcomroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 13
.
Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com
Free World Dialup #481416
-Original Message-
From: rcomroe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need Inputs FromHurricaneReliefWISP Teams
I'd presume it means WISP presentation time was
squeezed off of the agenda in favor of someone else. I'm sure getting an
audience seat does not equate to agenda time for presentation.
Rich
- Original Message -
From:
Tom
DeReggi
To: WISPA General List
Sent:
I doubt it's size of the room. Since it's
being held at a "Bell facility", I'd bet money what interest may have squeezed
WISP off the agenda. I just think what happened in Texas "this" are
not mere coincidence.
Rich
- Original Message -
From:
dustin
jurman
To: 'WISPA
Good eye. You never know who will take note, but I wouldn't be so sure that
this would necessarily be noted by even the FCC.
I'll never forget an scene I watched, even though it was 29 years ago (you
just don't forget some things). We were giving a live demonstration of new
2-way trunking
I'd been following the wordpress site (great work). The format for pictures
changed a couple times over the past week, and as of the last format change
all links to pictures seem to be gone. Am I missing it?
Rich
- Original Message -
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA
There are 2 fundamentally different approaches for monitoring.
[1] Poll parameters and strip-chart them displaying some specific duration
of history. In this approach data rolls off the end of the strip-chart and
is not retained. Only numerical data can be displayed graphically is
5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tracking Signal / Noise / Resends / Etc.
rcomroe wrote:
Under no circumstances should
any
manufacturer CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A PREVIOUSLY DEFINED OID.
and yet...
Trango's MIBs for the 5800 and 5830 are wildly different. Never mind that
they're substantially
www.webmin.com
We make it a standard part of our install on all our RedHat systems. Funny
that there's still no windows equivalent known to me, or we'd put it on
windows box's too.
Rich
- Original Message -
From: danlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
I thought Motorola amended those interference
claims long ago (or should have). Why?
1. Canopy nominal C/I performance (2 to 3 dB)
is only achieved at very strong signal. Anywhere any distance (meaning
signal not that far above sensitivity) Canopy's C/I isn't much different than
any
He could tell 100 others whatever access he knows. Again, what difference
does it make if its him or someone else he's passed info to? I'd repassword
every device in the network that he knew access to. Systemwide
repasswording is an advanced topic, but something that can be automated.
huh? I appologize if this was in-jest and I didn't recognize it.
You apply a potential when you connect something (a voltage). You don't
apply a current.
Neither voltage nor current kill most things. There are a few kinds of
things that are voltage sensitive but not typically found on the
13 matches
Mail list logo
