Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetition in the US
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:36:49 -0600, John Scrivner wrote The government cannot request data with a note saying it is confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like it or not. Scriv You invoked my name, but let me clear something up... If the FCC loses in court, exactly who is to blame? The FCC? Hardly. The court system? Maybe. Who? I dunno. I was opposed on the grounds that the government shouldn't know this in the first place, not that it will get spread around. My reasoning was that there's really no Constitutional justification for demanding the information. That someone will come along later and get to that information when it was promised to be confidential... well... even WISPA could find itself in that position if it collected it. I don't know why or how WISPA could get sued, but I don't think any of us foresaw the FCC getting sued until it happened, did we? And if WISPA got sued, what deep pockets would exist to pay the lawyers to fight it? That the case isn't summarily dismissed is a bad sign... Not that the FCC will lose, I don't know, but that the mere accusation of fudging numbers about how many people can get broadband is JUSTIFICATION FOR REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Do you get how flimsy that appears? Any old political goal or wish is justification for demanding data and it really IS at risk, since summary judgement hasn't occurred, the court is seriously considering the idea valid. Plaintiff: We think your policies might not be perfect, so we can sue, get the data you collect under promise of confidentiality, and spread it around the internet to use in a campaign to get you to change policies or have you as an agency absolished, or at least your people replaced. Court: Absolutely, your goals definitely trump any objections from businesses about confidentiality. Seems hard to imagine, but right now, that is precisely what's going on. Here's what I see happening as a solution to this: The FCC asks Congress to pass a law demanding we file... AND codifying confidentiality into law. Congress does this, and at the same time requires you to now obtain federal licensing to be an ISP and that licensing will not be granted until you provide proof of CALEA compliance and a host of other important things they suddenly get lobbied to include... All in the name of protecting the consumer of course... competence, adequacy, universal coverage, non- discrimination in who you serve, blah, blah, blah. And 95% of us close our doors and go to work for McDonald's to pay off our debts. I said long ago that opening the door and walking into the realm of federally regulated services is a guillotine for small businesses. There is no future for small business in federally regulated services. Never has been. We should have been fighting this from day one, not walking in like a wide eyed lamb. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CPI suing FCC to get at real state of broadbandcompetitionin the US
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:52:37 -0600, Jory Privett wrote I do not think Peters argument was that the data should be shared. I think he is against that as much as anyone. BUT what needs to happen is that someone needs to check and verify the data that is collected. The FCC does no review of what is submitted. A ILEC could have on DSL line in a zip code and therefore claim that broadband is available for the entire area. This is the kind of thing that needs to be checked and verified. Jory Privett WCCS Why? What is so sacred about broadband that the federal government has to come in like a bull in a china shop and start just banging around willy- nilly? Think about this: We use this single dsl line in a zip code argument, and then what one of us would lease a tower site, put up equipment and backhauls, install ONE customer and then refuse to serve anyone else there, and do this in every town for 100 miles in every direction? What kind of crazy nonsense is that? The only time that makes sense, is when it pays to do it, that's why. So why and how would someone profit from doing it. Answer that question, and you'll answer why there are broadband problems in the US (if there really is any) and it won't require a single confidentiality breach, or anything else. Remember, this argument is about the SUCCESS of a set of policies, and that people want to change them. Frankly, I think the spread of broadband coverage is going to go about the same speed no matter if the governemnt gets deeply involved or not. About the best it can do proactively is nothing. The best it can do at all, is GET OUT OF THE WAY. If that means letting some spectrum loose, that would help. If it meant telling the federal land managers (USFS, BLM, etd) to stop demanding a half million dollar EIS to build a tower for a WIFI backhaul, and other such nonsense, that's getting out of the way, too. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:23:19 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote Don't misinterpret this as suggesting not to file, as I believe one should file for various reasons. But I disagree with statements and the reason to file are different. First, At a FCC/WISP meeting, I remember a very enlightening presentation from Patrick Leary. The key statement was Where Wireless goes, DSL follows. Its more true than we can imagine. Only thing is, In upcomming years its going to be, Where Small Wireless providers go, FIOS and/or ILEC WIMAX deployments follow. Nobody appreciate an unserved market, until you see your competition wanting it and profiting from it. History has proved, you kill your competition before they grow strong enough to be a threat. They won;t take the small WISP approach to go where no one has served yet. They will take the Mcdonalds/Wendy's approach of using our data to find the most profitable areas to serve, where they can take the business from WISPs. Executive's Ego's are involved, and they don't like to see others outshining them Provide Form477 info publically, so competitors can see it in detail, It will be damaging. (Unless of course the informatioin disclosed shows no real threat in terms of volume) You know, I see the same pattern too. In 1999 here, there was no telco DSL in 90% (terms of population) of the area I now am covering or soon to cover. Between 1999 and now, a wireless provider in the area applied for the low interest loans (and was approved) for a large amount of it. Amazingly enough, DSL sprouted up all over the place where Qwest had said we have no plans to put it in, in all those places where public money had become available and was requested by said WISP (not me). City A has all of 1300 people, and city W has 700 people and found themselves with DSLAMS installed and stringing new cables all over town. The project was huge and kept the telco guys here for months, in a town of a few hundred people. Just up the road is a town of 6000 people, but no public funds were applied for for this town. NO DSL in that town. They're all served by Qwest. Still no plans to put in DSL in said town of 6000 people, either. Heck, they've got remote DSLAM's to serve 20 and 50 customers spread across the countryside out in the boonies... In the area were loans were approved to provide broadband The reason Form 477 should be filed is that its not meant for public eyes. Its meant for the FCC, so they can make intelligent decission with that inforamtion, to foster growth in the industry for consumers benefit. The FCC already knows WISPs are a major player now in theory. But they need proof to backup opinion. Form 477 helps provide that. But if we look at this differently, the data becomes a snapshot of growth. Ready-made demographics and marketing research, all done by each of us, spending big bucks to do real life marketing, which, if it ends up being publicly available, provides a road map to every Cableco and ILEC and CLEC to show them right where they need to go. They're too big to see life on the ground, but that information, once accumulated for a 2 or more years becomes a great roadmap that analyists can use with incredible efficiency to tell them exactly where we've cultivated markets and for them to move in on... There is not a viable compromise on this issue. We need the FCC to have this information, and we need the info to be held in confidence. The Law and Fines are irrelevent as the goal is NOT to not file. The goal is to support confidentiality. RIght... the question is: Why should having a dumb pipe delivering bits to customers make me required to risk my information in the first place? It may seem against our interests, but I really think we should be on the offensive against CPI on this in terms of It's not really a federal case... The nation's future does not revolve around you or anyone else knowing this. Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form FCC477 - I called CPI
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:15:04 -0800, Forbes Mercy wrote So I was a bit curious as to who this Center for Public Integrity (CPI) was and who funded them and what their intent was. I looked them up and gave the guy a call that is in charge of the lawsuit for CPI against the FCC. We had a long chat and he referred me to their website and what they are trying to do: http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/ Basically, according to the director of this project, they are trying to mirror the other media provider information by providing a list by zip code of who gives service in an area. We discussed how inaccurate the list is for say cable where my town supposedly has five cable providers when in fact we have two and only one by the zip code I searched. I then asked if that is all the information they want from the FCC Form 477. He said Yes all we really want is the provider name. So I asked why his FOI and lawsuit states ALL data provided in the Form 477. I explained that our competition already has enough of an advantage but if they had their hands on the number of customers, their speeds, etc. by zip code they would know where to spend money to go after us specifically. Essentially telling our competition everything about us without even the tease of an offer to by protected by an non disclosure agreement (NDA). I think even Telco and Cable agree with us on this potential which is why they have joined with the FCC opposing the full disclosure request. His answer (CPI) was that they don't expect to get the whole database and in the end will likely compromise for just the names. I told him I have no problem giving my name or having the FCC do that but why ask for everything, I said, it demonstrates intent to disclose so much more that could damage us. He said he knows that but it was their decision to start there and work back to what they want. I explained how when you negotiate you don't ask for, let's say buying a car, for $2000 off when you only want $500 off. By doing so the salesman, in this case the FCC, has no motivation to work with you because you made an unreasonable request. Why not just file the Freedom of Information (FOI) request for just the provider names? He said, it's nice to hear a grass roots provider view but we felt this was the best bargaining method. He made clear they are not funded by a Corporation and are certainly not trying to help anyone but consumers. I see one of two motivations for this: 1) They are being pushed by their attorney to go too far which sounds about right for a lawyer who knows he/they will get a lot more money for drawing out negotiations when he could just make a reasonable request or, 2) CPI feels they will get more donors and media attention by being able to make the claim they are trying to protect the public in a big media splash saying we just want their names while really asking for the whole cake. They are a DC organization so you can never really trust their intent. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. www.wabroadband.com I tried emailing them, but they don't respond to emails that say I don't like what you're trying to do, why are you doing this? It's harder to turn away a phone call, I guess. Did you suggest to any of them that they ask US for information or try negotiating with trade groups for info? Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:27:22 -0800, George Rogato wrote Blake Bowers wrote: You know, the only real difference between WalMart and most other retailers, is that what the manufacturer agrees to do, WalMart holds them to. Rubbermaid, Vlasic Pickles, Bicycle makers, the list goes on and on. All of them agreed to do X, Y, and Z and each found out they had agreed to do things they didn't know how to do, or could not do. Many companies agreed to sell to WalMart at less than their cost, and went broke trying to keep up with demand. WalMart is a huge market. They sell in 3 months what the next largest retailer (the second largest retailer, that is) in the world sells in a year. Walmart insists that prices must FALL, not rise, and that they must be competitive. Walmart's profit on some items is on the order of 1 to 5%, and those are not large items, either. They DO their part in passing on revenues to manufacturers. Nobody exists on slimmer margins than WalMart does. There's a trail of dead or damaged companies in WalMart's wake, but it wasn't Walmart that did it to them. It was their own greed or incompetence, when they were offered a chance at the largest retailer's shelf space in the world, and took it in terms they could NOT sustain. There's a lesson for all of us in that, in that we really SHOULD know our capabilities and have a plan to deal with both growth and competition. Can we handle success? Can we keep our word, do we know our own selves well enough to make our plans and stick to them with discipline? Will we promise what we can't deliver, if it appears to promise us growth? Every company that sells products to WalMart knows exactly what they're expected to do when they start out. Many think they can get concessions, or have unrealistic expectations. I spent quite a bit of time reading about this... And I resolved at that moment, no matter what the future, I resolve to know what I'm doing, where I'm going, and what I and my company can and cannot do. I sort of turned over a new leaf after reading and digesting. It was a good way to start 2007. Inspired by WalMart, no less. Hate them if you want, but I don't and can't. They're a breath of fresh air in a world of fudging, loose focus and blind ambition. They have an absolute resolute goal they have never wavered on, and that has always been the customer. WE need that kind of discipline and focus, too, as companies and individuals. NEver forget what we're here for. The pickles... The famous pickles. Got to love it. You tie the pickles with the bankruptcy, when every industry analyst, all the business mags, Vlasic themselves, all agree, Walmart or the pickle deal was not a critical factor in their bankruptcy. Not sure about pickles, but I have heard the Rubbermaid story. Walmart, dropped Rubbermaid off at the door of bakruptcy. Popular story about the way they do business. All Walmart business practices do is give everyone an example of extreme agressiveness of those sharks out there. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:06:21 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote I just read the USA Today article from 2003. It says the namebrand items provide 15% profit while the private label items provide 30% profit. Those are HUGE margins for a company now doing a billion a day in sales. I don't know where those numbers come from, but I know that some of thier stuff sells for definitely less than those markups. Perhaps some sells for more and makes up the difference. ' I really don't see how you can call 15% huge. It's very small. Nobody I know of that's doing well in the retail business of commodity items is selling things at those margins. Remember, just because the markup is 15%, doesn't mean the actual profit is. Overall, Walmart isn't making huge percentage profits on the gross sales. I agree they have gotten where they are because they can operate on very low margins and are very efficient. This is the reason all the small mom and pop places have gone out of business... they can't figure out how to operate on less than 50% margins... or they don't want to. Well, for my $38 account, I know I have less than $10 fixed expenses, including all the leases, etc. The only thing not factored into that is equipment replacement costs, as I really don't know what that's going to be long-term. I really do expect to make a 50 to 70% profit on sales in the future. And that's not going to make me rich in any sense of the word. Different market, different service, different universe. :) Travis Microserv wispa wrote: On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:27:22 -0800, George Rogato wrote Blake Bowers wrote: You know, the only real difference between WalMart and most other retailers, is that what the manufacturer agrees to do, WalMart holds them to. Rubbermaid, Vlasic Pickles, Bicycle makers, the list goes on and on. All of them agreed to do X, Y, and Z and each found out they had agreed to do things they didn't know how to do, or could not do.Many companies agreed to sell to WalMart at less than their cost, and went broke trying to keep up with demand. WalMart is a huge market. They sell in 3 months what the next largest retailer (the second largest retailer, that is) in the world sells in a year.Walmart insists that prices must FALL, not rise, and that they must be competitive. Walmart's profit on some items is on the order of 1 to 5%, and those are not large items, either. They DO their part in passing on revenues to manufacturers. Nobody exists on slimmer margins than WalMart does. There's a trail of! dead or damaged companies in WalMart's wake, but it wasn't Walmart that did it to them. It was their own greed or incompetence, when they were offered a chance at the largest retailer's shelf space in the world, and took it in terms they could NOT sustain. There's a lesson for all of us in that, in that we really SHOULD know our capabilities and have a plan to deal with both growth and competition. Can we handle success? Can we keep our word, do we know our own selves well enough to make our plans and stick to them with discipline? Will we promise what we can't deliver, if it appears to promise us growth?Every company that sells products to WalMart knows exactly what they're expected to do when they start out. Many think they can get concessions, or have unrealistic expectations. I spent quite a bit of time reading about this... And I resolved at that moment, no matter what the future, I resolve to know what I'm doing, where I'm going, and what I and my company can and cann! ot do. I sort of turned over a new leaf after reading and digesting. It was a good way to start 2007. Inspired by WalMart, no less. Hate them if you want, but I don't and can't. They're a breath of fresh air in a world of fudging, loose focus and blind ambition. They have an absolute resolute goal they have never wavered on, and that has always been the customer. WE need that kind of discipline and focus, too, as companies and individuals. NEver forget what we're here for. The pickles... The famous pickles. Got to love it. You tie the pickles with thebankruptcy, when every industry analyst, all the business mags, Vlasic themselves,all agree, Walmart or the pickle deal was not a critical factor in their bankruptcy. Not sure about pickles, but I have heard the Rubbermaid story. Walmart, dropped Rubbermaid off at the door of bakruptcy. Popular story about the way they do business.All Walmart business practices do is give everyone an example of extreme agressiveness of those ! sharks out there.-- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, IncBroadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains541-969-8200 Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband
Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings - Competing
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:38:55 +, John J. Thomas wrote I read an article once about this. What happens when Walmart can't drop prices any lower? Then their prices don't drop. What's confusing about that? Who foots the bill when Walmart employees get sick and go to the Emergency room? Who foots the bill when you or your children, or my children, or the guy across the street, or ANYONE goes to ER? That question is as irrelevant as it gets. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:38:04 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote I wanted to get some feedback from the List. Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? Is 18 dbi enough? I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good for? Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi ( 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's 18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. Ok, where do I start... I can't tell that antenna design matters a bit whether you're using OFDM or QAM or... ??? Seems the radio waves propagate the same. I'm using 18 db grids out to well past 20 miles, with no amps and no high powered radios (using CM-9's). I have ONE client with a 24 db grid at 17 miles or so, and he's got like a -60's RSSI. Doesn't even need it, but it was mounted to his house when I hooked him up. So I saved myself 40 bucks and used his. I have one client btween 29 and 30 miles using a 16 db Vagi, from Pacwireless. Again, no high powered cards, and he's got around 12 to 15 db SNR ( -80 to -83). I was going to use a 19 db grid, but my antenna was defective, and that was the only other thing in the van. Star-OS access point, Compex WP54AG client board, running Ikarus. I think our maximum throughput in 11b mode (won't work in G, sorry) was 350KB or so. The customer is a 2M client, and we can get 2M in a speed test any hour of the day or night. My expeirience with G mode (not ofdm specifically) is that much higher RSSI is required to work at all. I've seen OFDM clients work fine for 900 mhz at -85, so long as you weren't hoping to get past 1M throughput in a 5mhz wide channel. My first 40 clients were ALL 18 db grids, be they 1 mile or 23 miles. 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/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:59:18 -0800, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. It must be, because running your gear, I cannot get G mode to work acceptably AT ALL. In my area, every channel has SOME noise on it. Even with signal levels in the low '60's, I could never achieve better than 350 to 400 KB / sec throughput for a DEPLOYED AP and client, and B mode could hit 1400 KB/sec using compressible data, about 650-700 wihtout compression. Narrowing channels appears to kill the G characteristic of waiting for completely clear air before it will transmit. Without cloaking, a nearly idle access point in G mode with a G client, will have varying 1 to 400 ms pings as it waits for clear air to transmit in. Switching to B mode gives you rock solid 1 to 7 ms pings on an active AP with a number of clients. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. Nonsense. My highest power radios are CM9's and I have have few to no noise issues in B mode. B has limited throughput and yet it has it's uses. It is certainly NOT holding industry back. I believe that investing in B only technology is dumb, though. I thought it was dumb when I started a little less than 3 years ago, which is why I tried not to. I've found that 11a is actually a bit more friendly, in that it's easier to target your ap's and clients, and exclude noise sources outside the pattern. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point -- I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. Sub 100 MW works awesome in B mode, too, so long as the writers of the drivers dont' disable the awesome enhanced features available in Atheros based radios. ( HINT HINT ) OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. That's a lotta hype. I put YOUR gear in place, as per YOUR instructions, and YOUR predictions don't work out that way. I've found that there's caveats to all this. OFDM makes great RF links, but it takes a little bit more signal to maintain low retransmissions or errors. On the other hand, OFDM is dramatically better when it comes to surviving multipath issues and fresnel encroachment. G mode is simply not workable in a busy environment, unless you can force the radio to abandon listening to non ofdm noise, or narrow your channels enough to get away from it. By design, standard 11g can have it's performance killed by even a single B client attempting to associate to the AP. Not explaining this to people wanting to implement is irresponsible, in my view. Lonnie -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Powerconsumption
Somewhere in the archives of this list, I posted a spreadsheet designed for very high reliability in northern climates. WRAP boards consume about 1A @12V. That's 24AH per day. Depending on your location, your WORST month's solar power capability will range from minimal to around 4 hours / day average. Thus, if are southern coastal, you can count on around 4 hours of sun per day. So, you need 24 AH divide by 4 hours of sun average 6 amps needed for 4 hours. 2 Kyocera KC65T's are 3.6 amps ea www.wholesalesolar.com Now, you need batteries. First, estimate your longest possible period without full sun... 3 days? 5 days? 10 days? for me, I had figured 10 days. So.. 10 days X 24 ah = 240 ah. Since you should not discharge more than 50%, i'll need 240 / .5 or 480 AH of battery c apacity @ 12V. That way, even long term weather won't damage the batteries. Your solar panels should go in series, with one of these: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/controller- folder/sb2000wdisplay.html It makes the panels a LOT more efficient and produce considerably more power over the long term. Now, if you use the logic and formulas here, you should be able to roughly calculate for any size load and location. Use insolation charts for your location. They come with w/m ratings, and fortunately, those happen to be roughly equivalent to sun hours per day. On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:40:43 -0600, Mark McElvy wrote I am trying to wrap my head around calculation power consumption and run time calculations. I used a Kill-A-Watt, plugged in a WRAP board w/ one each CM-9 and WLM54g. The CM-9 is the backhaul and WLM54G is the AP with two clients connected. The following data was collected. 330 Hours 1.85 KWH ..07 A 05 WATT 07 VA I could use some help deciphering. I need to understand battery capacities and how to calculate run times based on the above info and a given battery size. Also charging with solar, how to calculate charging capacity needed. Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ mark at neofast dot net neofast, Inc, wireless internet for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] So what do you think
So, what do you think CALEA compliance will cost you? Got a number yet, or have you promised compliance without knowing the price tag? I said that not resisting regulation would kill us. The process has begun. We marched in to be fleeced, smiling and bleating softly. Been nice knowing you folks. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:46:13 -0500, Rick Smith wrote I think I'm going to be the first to say this, but I don't have time to give a crap about calea. I'm taking advantage of an industry organization to do something on my behalf, because I can't have the time to give a crap later when the FCC comes knocking after finding out I DIDN'T file... I predict that somewhere around 80% of small ISP's won't file. Many won't even know they have to. Just think, EVERY block size network. If you build out for your neighborhood and have 10 neighbors... YOU have to fork out the big bucks, YOU are now dead. You just don't know it yet, because you have no idea on earth that the federal govenrment has just taken wholesale control of the ISP business. Now, I run Mikrotik everywhere, and I've seen comments about packet monitoring being OK for compliance, and I'll STILL not do anything until I'm provided with a subpoena, but I figure having the paperwork THERE is probably a necessary evil. You can bet that any industry standard derived will derived with the input from the telecoms to bankrupt as many small ISP's as possible. I predict that in 2 years there will not be enough WISP's left to fund WISPA at all, unless the dues go up on the order 20 to 50 times. This, in my opinion, is just big brother licensed extortion for the little guys. Paying a TPP for snooping on your customers is just crap. But, what are you going to do ? You're going to pay and then you're going to go out of business. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form 445
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800, George Rogato wrote I predict the little guy will end up giving all his subs publics and passing the ball to their upstreams, and probably-most likely for a price. I find it hard to believe this is not going to be an option. You actually think that the big guys will actually let that happen? Come on. What are you smoking? This is thier chance to wipe out all those pesky little guys and own it all. And the FCC and feds will cheer at the order forced from chaos. We'll find out more Thursday when we meet at the Hoover Building in DC to talk to the FBI and Homeland Security about CALEA. If anyone has any questions they want answered, nows the time to put them in print. Yeah. Could you please quote the constitutional authority for this, please cite relevant sections and paragraphs. Oh, and What do you intend to do to prevent small neighborhood networks, informal internet access via voluntary and cooperative systems, free networks, and open and free networks from continuing to be non-compliant and even unaware of the requirements? I would like the answer to those on tape and in writing. And then we need to work at launching the largest industry and public backlash ever, to end this sort of stuff and ensure it NEVER comes back. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:22:12 -0600, JohnnyO wrote I'm not a pessimist at all. I just know what federal regulation means. It means WE GO AWAY. Federal regulation is the DEATH of small business. I have no doubt the Telcos and Cablecos are no doubt celebrating big time. What they could not do to wipe out competition the federal government does for them. Doom and Gloom eh Mark ? Damn man - the big pessimist (sp?) JohnnyO Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: CALEA - HOW? RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:49:52 -0500, Rick Smith wrote OK, Don't point me to some confusing URL I don't have time (or patience) to read about how to comply with CALEA. How would you provide the hook in so the FBI could just listen in at any time (is that the way it works ? Or do they still need to provide a subpoena...) ? Others I'm sure will come up.. I've spent.. well... quite a bit of time watching for the key data to show up that answers those questions. I can't answer them. I can't find the information, either. The best I can find, is that you must provide either (can't tell which ) either all the data that goes to and from a specific user... OR a specific IP, provided in a specific format (don't know what that format is, can't find out) to the requesting LEA within 2 hours if it is an amber alert or 2 days if any other type of request. There is a data format or protocol which is supposed to be used, but I cant' find out what it is. I did manage to read that there will unlikely be any any open source implementations, since the protocol is not free or open and that the license is very costly. All I can find is that we're going to have to comply with industry standards. I can't figure out who is creating those standards, or if those standards will be open for implementation, or we'll have to pay a license to those who created them. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:55:19 -0600, Mac Dearman wrote It's going to be to easy Rick. If everyone will hold their horses and just trot for a short time they will get everything lined out. The ability to stream live data is already in place here and it's cheap. I don't know why it wouldn't be acceptable as it would be the live data stream they would ask for. What they do with it is their business, but that's just not a hard deal either. You're way too gullible if you think that. I wish folks wouldn't be alarmists at this point because it does not help anyone or anything - it only tends to get folks feathers ruffled over nothing. No point in stirring up the cows in the slaughter yard, true. Capturing the data that the FBI (or whoever) would want is a simple simple thing. It shouldn't cost us over $100.00 to implement and like I aid earlier - most of us already have a device(s) that can do this. Here is my thought on the matter: If some sleaze ball was calling my 10 year old daughter and was on someone's wireless network - I would want that bustard caught and put in jail - - with or without a subpoena!! I disagree. If some sleazeball were making obscene phone calls to my kids, I would want EVERY constituional requirement followed. I depend on that to defend myself, as well. Wouldn't you Mark? Or would you be hollering foul then as well?? Mac, this is apples and oranges. This is the FCC declaring that EVERY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION BE PRE-TAPPED at the expense of industry. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form 445
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:44:20 -0800, George Rogato wrote wispa wrote: You actually think that the big guys will actually let that happen? Yeah, I can see it now, our upstreams turning CALEA compliance into a profit center. Anyways if you want to bring your own tape recorder up to the feds and ask them some questions, go for it. But the offer still stands. Any reasonable question regarding the implementation of CALEA compliance I will be glad to ask. What is unreasonable about asking them about all the informal and semi-formal and little community, neighborhood, and other hobby networks out there? I suspect there's a lot of people who haven't even thought this far, and are so buried in 'big business' perspective they're going to be at a loss to be able to answer this. I consider the answer to this VITAL. Why? Because that's the key to understanding what the ultimate goal is. If they say they're not the issue then we REALLY have a big bullseye on our backs, and it's the big guys who painted it. If they intend to shut down or force compliance on every network, no matter how formed or how small, or under what auspices it was formed, then it's time for some activism to end this - the flow of information is not holy ground the government owns. This isn't political George. I don't know just where the line is for you, where you suddenly say man, this is nuts, we shouldn't have to do this! and you say so... But I am dumbfounded that without ANY idea of what impact this may have on you and your business and customers and employees PERSONALLY, you still are not even considering objecting. With the exception of Rick, I have yet to see anyone who seems to even think they should ever object. Instead, we're talking about going, hat in hand, saying tell us what to do. People, WHAT ARE WE, men or sheep? Trust me, EVERY industry talks back..objects to excessive regulation. Many of them spend millions of dollars to try to influence Congress to back off. And we're afraid to even disagree, even if the cost is unemployment. ( shakes head ) Sorry guys. Until I was 25 years old, I followed everything my parents said without question. Then I guess I finally had my teenage rebellion years. Maybe they're not over with... but for some reason, I find myself saying GET THE BLOODY HECK OUTA MY BUSINESS to the government, and thinking I have not only the right, but the OBLIGATION to do this, merely because I am a citizen, and we ALL have that obligation to defend ourselves and our own best interests from excessive meddling. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:40:41 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, wispa wrote: This is the FCC declaring that EVERY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION BE PRE-TAPPED at the expense of industry. WHAT? You are not correct. This is the LEA asking for a means to collect data on suspected criminals. They will have to have a subpoena to gather the data, and they do not automatically get access to your network data. You are being alarmist and aren't even informed enough to understand what CALEA is. Uhmm, Butch... No, they're not asking for a means. They're insisting that we build the tap into our network, at our expense, prior to a request ( whether we got any requests or not ), to provide them data in a specific form. THAT is precisely what I said, nothing more, and nothing less. Who's that looking over your shoulder...You should be careful not to fall asleep, because they are watching your bedroom right now. They watch ALL our bedrooms (and kitchens, too). They can read all our email, too. In fact, the post office opens every letter that passes through to send faxes to the government of all the mail, so they'll have it on record. I've heard that the trees are on their side, too! SHEESH! You ARE tiring. Well, if you didn't make all that up, then you might have had a point. I said nothing of the sort. Up to this point, the LEA's had to pony up the means of tapping and grabbing the data they wanted. Which, in my view, is fair and equitable. Why should we all pay for and design a network around some system few will ever use? CALEA was NOT written for ISP's or VOIP. The FCC and DOJ have broadened its meaning all on their own. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Form 445
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:40:07 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, wispa wrote: Uhmm, Butch... No, they're not asking for a means. They're insisting that we build the tap into our network, at our expense, prior to a request ( whether we got any requests or not ), to provide them data in a specific form. And what form is that data going to take? You don't know. You are being alarmist, in that you are getting bent out of shape over something you don't even KNOW. THAT is what I said. Why shouldn't I? It's an unfunded federal mandate on private enterprise, completely without justification, in my view. How could ANYONE possibly defend it? The FACT is that the government MUST have a means to gathering information for criminal prosecutions. Oh? What could possibly be denying them this? Nothing. There's no reason they should make ALL OF US PAY TO BUILD IT ALL FOR THEM WHETHER IT IS NEEDED OR NOT. Even you can't deny that. That means (when it comes to Internet traffic) MUST happen at the ISP level. WHY? Because MANY ISPs HIDE THEIR CUSTOMERS. It happens behind every ISP who decides that NAT is necessary. Sorry, but that is one thing that makes it necessary for them to gather data on YOUR network. They HAVE to be able to gather data on a specific suspect. Following your logic, it won't be long when network design, practices, and even equipment choices will all be federally regulated to improve this. Can't afford it? Who the bloody hell cares, the GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE IT sigh THAT is precisely what I said, nothing more, and nothing less. REALLY? Maybe when I read these words from YOUR email address, it was a government conspiracy that sent them to point the finger at you. Here are SOME of the things you said: SNIP I said that not resisting regulation would kill us. So, you don't believe this? How could you NOT??? CALEA is the tip of the iceburg. The process has begun. We marched in to be fleeced, smiling and bleating softly. Been nice knowing you folks. /SNIP and here SNIP the federal govenrment has just taken wholesale control of the ISP business. /SNIP It certainly has. There is no means of connecting a person to the internet that is now NOT federally controlled. If you can think of a way, tell us. I'm all ears. Heck, I'm ready to switch now. and here SNIP You can bet that any industry standard derived will derived with the input from the telecoms to bankrupt as many small ISP's as possible. I predict that in 2 years there will not be enough WISP's left to fund WISPA at all, unless the dues go up on the order 20 to 50 times. /SNIP So, you think the big guys aren't going to lobby for things that benefit them, while we have no voice or consideration because don't have billions to lobby with? and here SNIP we need to work at launching the largest industry and public backlash ever, to end this sort of stuff... /SNIP Perhaps I'm the only one reading alarmist into your words... Yes, you SHOULD be alarmed. We should have been ALARMED A LONG TIME AGO. Up to this point, the LEA's had to pony up the means of tapping and grabbing the data they wanted. Which, in my view, is fair and equitable. Why should we all pay for and design a network around some system few will ever use? Read the documentation again...I'm not here to educate you, but the fact is that your network is NOT going to have to be designed around anything. Well, I haven't got a dollar to bet... but I BET YOU WILL. CALEA was NOT written for ISP's or VOIP. The FCC and DOJ have broadened its meaning all on their own. No, it wasn't written for that purpose. But, the world is not the same as it was when the CALEA laws were penned. Times change and so do the laws. My only suggestion is to do 2 things: 1. Like it or not, the law is the law, and you MUST follow it. If you decide to break the law, I hope you are caught and punished. 2. Don't ASSUME (you know about that word, right?) that every law is a government conspiracy to put you out of business. I don't assume any such thing. It's JUST THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT TO FAVOR THE WEALTHY AND INFLUENTIAL over the interests of those of us who are not. OH...it wouldn't hurt if you'd take your meds... Sure Butch. Looks like you've been on yours WAY too long. All that valium musta numbed you totally. I said that when our leaders openly promoted the FCC placing us all under federal regulation that this WOULD happen. CALEA is the first. Now, for everyone else. There will be a LONG list... there will be homeland security, there will be fairness doctrine where we have to gaurantee full connectivity, there will be social policy (must provide to those who don't pay the bill) and the list will go on and on. YOU WILL GO UNDER from these mandates. It may not be this year or next year
Re: [WISPA] Re: Feb 22
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:21:19 -0600, John Scrivner wrote I'm in Walden's district here in Oregon. However, I don't fully understand what, exactly, is being sought. Are they wanting someone to lobby the Congresscritters, or are we supposed to contact them to help them...??? What, exactly? Frannie, I have copied the WISPA list server on this email. Please reply to me and let me know exactly what you would like for me to have these contacts do who are in the districts listed below. I am sure you want to see them express their need for unlicensed use of unused television channel space through the WIN Act of 2007. Can you tell us more specific ways we can help drive home this message? Anyone in a district listed below can contact Frannie at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you may work through me to assist you in getting the word out. Together we can actively change public policy to help us and our potential customers to get access to broadband. Thanks, Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: Hey there, These are the congressional districts and the corresponding Representatives. Do you think you might be able to find any good WISPs in some? Thank you! F California 14th district - Anna Eshoo, CA California 19th - George Radanovich, CA California 23rd - Lois Capps, CA California 32nd - Hilda L. Solis, CA California 36th - Jane Harman, CA California 45th - Mary Bono, CA Florida 6th - Cliff Stearns, FL Georgia 9th - Nathan Deal, GA Illinois 1st - Bobby L. Rush, IL Illinois 14th - Dennis Hastert, IL Illinois 19th - John Shimkus, IL Indiana 9th - Baron P. Hill, IN Massachusetts 7th - Edward J. Markey, MA Michigan 1st - Bart Stupak, MI Michigan 6th - Fred Upton, MI Michigan 15th - John D. Dingell, MI Mississippi 3rd - Charles W. Chip Pickering, MS Nebraska 2nd - Lee Terry, NE New Jersey 6th - Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ New Jersey 7th - Mike Ferguson, NJ New Mexico 1st - Heather Wilson, NM New York 10th - Edolphus Towns, NY New York 13th - Vito Fossella, NY New York 17th - Eliot L. Engel, NY Oregon 2nd - Greg Walden, OR Pennsylvania 14th - Mike Doyle, PA Tennessee 6th - Bart Gordon, TN Texas 6th - Joe Barton, TX Texas 9th - Gene Green, TX Texas 20th - Charles A. Gonzalez, TX Virginia 9th - Rick Boucher, VA Wyoming (all over state) - Barbara Cubin, Wy * * * Frannie Wellings Associate Policy Director Free Press 202.265.1490 x 21 www.freepress.net -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:06 PM To: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: Feb 22 I'd also like to talk about where you have people who could contact their member of Congress - we might need to map it out, specifically with the members of the relevant committees. If I sent you a list of districts, do you think you might be able to match it up with good WISPA members? I would sure try. Please send me the districts and I will work to find matches. Thanks, Scriv Best, F * * * Frannie Wellings Associate Policy Director Free Press 202.265.1490 x 21 www.freepress.net -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:10 PM To: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: Feb 22 My cell number is 618-237-2387. Please send me your number. I will plan on us meeting at 3 pm on the 22nd. Cheers! Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: Sounds good. I'll check with Durbin's office and see if his staff has time that afternoon. Let's meet for coffee on the 22nd at 3pm if that works for you. If we have a meeting in the Senate, we could just meet over there. Best, F * * * Frannie Wellings Associate Policy Director Free Press 202.265.1490 x 21 www.freepress.net -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:14 PM To: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: Feb 22 I would like to do that. It would need to be in the afternoon if possible. I have other commitments all morning and until after lunch. If you can arrange for a time for me to meet with them in the afternoon and you and I could be there together that would be great. Let me know. Thanks, Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: Hey there, You're in town on the 22^nd right? Do you have time to a) get a cup of coffee with me and b) meet with Senator Durbin's staff? I can set it up if you let me know. I might be out of town on the 23^rd , so I thought I'd check with you now. Best, F * * * Frannie Wellings Associate Policy Director Free Press 202.265.1490 x 21
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
as to whether the EIRP, out of band emissions, and so on, meet the legal requirements. Of course it does not. But there is nothing wrong with a group of people taking up a collection to help a manufactuer pay for certifying their combination. The grey area is it is also in the new rules that all the components (such as antenna and cables) don't necessarilly have to be bought from the manufacturer, if they are the same products bought elsewhere. So if a manufacturer certified a complete combination, and discloses what components were in it, technically it could be argued that it is that same product as the manufacturers, if the same oem parts were used. But legally that won't completely fly either, because there is no FCC sticker that was issued to the manufactuer, and there is no one accountable for it. So technically, Again, this process of using compliant parts with a DoC on file would be a great way to solve ALL of this. The FCC could ALWAYS restrict it to WISP applications, even, if they wanted. at least one major component of the solution would have to be certified where you'd get the sticker from the manufacturer. So legally we may be able to substitute antenna, but that is not the same thing as saying you are allowed to just build your own radio system from scratch. I would argue that the market lifespan and the almost frantic pace of innovation and technological improvement has obsoleted the assembly certification process, as parts suppliers update what's being sold as often as every few months. So, we certify the Star-OS WAR board with a Compex WLM54AG (super) and next month they drop that radio and start building a newer better version. THEY have to do all the work to make it compliant in the first place... why not let that work be all that's required for compliance? Computer manufactures do this, and that's the only reason we're not stuck with onerous delays for new technology. If they want innovation and advancement, then they need to build a regulatory framework that does NOT stand in the way, and at the same time encourages both compliance and advancement. 6) 5.4G violations. They were very concerned that some gear on the market may be able to illegally be configured to use 5.4Ghz without going through the certification process for compliance. They are much more concerned on the compliace of 5.4 gear because the importance NOT TO INTERFERE with DOD applications. So using uncertified 5.4 gear is on the Radar for enforcement, without sympathy. They did however say its a full green light for manufacturers to apply for certification, already two manufacturers have passed 5.4G certification testing. Boy, is there a lot of FUD about this. A lot of BS flying about, too. So, who's gotten certified for 5.4? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:17:09 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote Mark: You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless systems. I merely used PC's because anyone who's been around the PC business for a few years will be aware of the change that occurred a while back that allowed much easier changes to pc design and MUCH lower prices by simply using known devices in mix-n-match. PCs are UNintentional radiators, with radiated power levels that are very, very low. Wireless systems are intentional radiators, at significant power levels, and through unintended mixing, have the potential to disrupt other communications systems, including critical systems like public safety. But this is NOT limited to UNintentional radiators. It is also used for many intentional radiators, too. I found references to cell phones, wireless telephone handsets, digital voice devices, all of which were using known compliant devices and thus were compliant merely with DoC procedures. This is a very real fear of the FCC, borne out over nearly 100 years of experience now with the evolution of wireless technology. Actually, part 15 devices were never imagined to be built from componentized parts. There's at least 50 different 802.11 type mini-pci boards, more likely 200, all of which are common form factor, chipsets, and function. Since part 15 was designed for consumer items like baby monitors and mini tv cameras and doorbells and security monitors and car starters and other such standalone devices, it was never concieved of millions of the same exact function device being built from commodity parts. This is why Part 15 has no current provisions for DoC compliance like many other sections of the FCC code. There are licensed and some unlicensed stuff which does have DoC procedures. This was done because manyh things like Cell phones ARE built from commodity components. These things DO happen, and having a proliferation of unlicensed systems out there with significant power levels (EIRP) can cause havoc. When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Well, there you have it folks. the only valid innovation is always big business overspending on overpriced stuff selling overpriced services at a loss, screwing the investors. Which is being defended in practice by people who claim to be my friends. sigh Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:02:09 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Steve Stroh wrote: As odd as it may sound, I am in agreement with Mark on this one. Mark went into detail about how it can (and should) be accomplished. For example: As much as we've had our differences and sniped at each other, thanks. Oh, and I regret now my acid comments your way at times. I misjudged you. If you can look past our disagreements, so can I. My apologies. Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and ATT actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless Internet Access. This is somewhat telling, huh? As a WISP consultant, I can tell you that I am fully aware of SEVERAL WISPs that are operating illegally. MOST of them are operating within the parameters of the legal EIRP, but with non-certified combinations of radio systems. I do tell those that don't know that they are operating illegally. The fact is, the FCC wants innovation? They have it with WISPs. They really need to work on a means to allow us (as WISPs) to operate legally, but not dramatically limit our choices. Allow us to provide reliable service, within the limits of the EIRP, radiation patterns and such. Allow us to make decisions on the combination of gear we use based on the coverage we need, so long as we don't go outside these limitations. I just don't see what's so wrong with this kind of request (beyond the current legal status). I detest Mikrotik in use... and I have no intention of having another MT vs Star-OS Jihad, but in this regard, if it were not for MT and Star-OS and a few others out there who were ALL Small guys there would ahve been almost NO innovation from the big guys. Like it or not, the try stuff and think outside the box types have solely been responsible for the advancement of this industry, in my view. EVERY ONE OF THEM has been illegal in some fashion, because there simply is no provision to innovate using commodity equipment within Part 15. Unlike Steve's characterization of slapping equipment together, the suggestion and procedure I detailed is all about doing things RIGHT, and following time honored and entirely legitemate means of BEING COMPLIANT with standards and rules, and all we're asking here is to change the law to allow standards compliant devices to be legal in the letter of the law. If this industry is going to move forward, and if the FCC REALLY intends compliance... There is ONLY one means of accomplishing this,and it's something like what Butch and I detailed. If we have to wait for Trango or Alvarion, or Motorola to crawl along, this industry dies, because the new stuff every 6 months or less will stop happening, and our innovation will be as slow and ponderous and timid as Cellular and POTS services. Not because the companies are necessarily slow, but they don't 'throw stuff up and try it, and cannot. They spend a LOT to get certified and in production, and it takes us WISP's about 24 hours to start telling them what we think of it. missing this, that doesn't work, why can't you...blah blah. Funny, HAM radio operators CAN build whatever they want out of whatever, and try it, for instance, in the 2.4 gig band. Oddly enough, they're lagging behind individual WISP's in knowledge, understanding, and practical applications. May I make a modest proposal, that the new 3.65-3.7ghz band have this type of equipment certification..and when it's available, the number of products that can be affordably deployed with rival that of unlicensed within 18 months. Man, anything but the status quo. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf 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/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Industry, FCC and WISPA observations
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:13:34 -0600, JohnnyO wrote I feel as though Lonnie and Tully could get together and split the costs involved... Man I'd love to see that ! You are ALWAYS spoiling for a fistfight, aren't you? hahahahaah Regards, JohnnyO Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:27:18 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Tom DeReggi wrote: The idea behind component certification and filing DoC type of certifications, is that there IS a sticker, and that sticker refers to a filing that describes EXACTLY what's in the box, whether it's software, hardware, whateverware. Verifying software in checking and enforcing systems would be hard for the FCC, they'd actually have to login to confirm apposed to a visual check. Well, this is true, but in the end, the thing they want is X amount of EIRP, no more than Y sideband noise. That is the interferance/reuse portion of the law. They don't have to log onto anything to measure that OR to see the components used. In the end, they want compliance with the rules, rules which are designed to protect primary users of a band of spectrum, or licensed users of a band of spectrum. I do not know if the FCC considers the process as sacrosanct, or if their focus is more about how to achieve compliance. I know that the rules for part15 compliance were in NO way designed to have a lot of small businesses innovating with commodity components. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] No, Patrick, it's not about the stickers...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:32:42 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote Sticker conscious? So this is what we've become as an industry? Following the very clear laws, which were once again just reiterated to us after another in a long chain of WISP visits, or not has now been reduced to simply being sticker conscious or not sticker conscious? Why not go further and call yourself Illegal and proud or just I don't give a ? Let's not have any more gee, I can't afford to be legal! That's not an argument that is credible today, with the range from legal cheap to premium CPE running from about $170 to sub-$300 - - that's cheap. No, Patrick, it's NOT about the sticker. It's about the fact that I can assemble a geek squad of a few people, that, using freely available software and cheap and easily available hardware, can BUILD FOR OURSELVES better priced and 'better suited for WISP use' equipment in a few weeks than Alvarion, Motorola and Trango have managed to do in years. Not only are we better, we're faster, we advance quicker, and we do more with less, AND CAN PRODUCE IT ALL COMPLIANT WITH THE TECHNICAL LIMITS OF THE LAW, faster than any larger company can dream of doing. Why? Because we live in a free country and we have free minds. But we can't do it legally. Why? Because the rules now PREVENT us from doing it and protect the interests of Alvarion and Motorola, rather than enhance the industry. It's because the best and brightest DO NOT build systems. The best and brightest at building sofware are building software. The best and brightest at building cheap radios are doing so. And the rest of us are assembling the parts we need to do the job that NO MAKER OF CERTIFIED GEAR HAS YET TO ASPIRE to, much less produce. WE ARE CAPABLE of putting those bits together, like it or not. That's why Apple Computers based the latest iteration of their operating system on something produced mostly by amateurs and geeks and ordinary schmucksfor FREE. It was better than ANYTHING Apple could pay any number of software engineers to build on their own. Period. Thus, FreeBSD became the basis of OS X. AGain, the capability of the ordinary schmucks proved to be a giant leap ahead of the #2 choice in pc's. My God, 5.4 is going to be a massive mess. OET will have to install a special phone line just to handle the incoming DoD complaint calls. Well, certainly, NOT A ONE OF US ON THIS LIST wants that. But if you wish to become an advocate for this industry, THEN STOP DEMANDING WE STOP BEING CREATIVE AND ADVANCING OUR INDUSTRY AND INSTEAD BE HELD BACK BY YOUR COMPANY AND THE OTHER manufacturers, and start helping us get a legal and regulatory environment that works, instead of one that's hopelessly broken, so we CAN. I hate to break it to you, but if today, Alvarion, Motorola, Trango, and a host of other names like them vanished from the map, the WISP business could and would go on, and we could do it purely with the talents and skills that exist with the individual operators. TURN IT LOOSE instead of attempting to bottle it up. Or is your loyalty purely to the company and not to US? 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 Sam Tetherow Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] cost effective reliable 5.8G cpe suggestions? RB112+CM9+Rootenna if you are not sticker conscious. If you are sticker conscious I use the Tranzeo TR5a-24/20 with MT/CM9 setups and they work great. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless rabbtux rabbtux wrote: Not to stir the fcc sticker debate, but what gear is out there today that is compatable with a MT/SR5 access point? Looking for lower cost CPEs for 1-5 mile deployments. Thanks -- 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(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail
RE: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules are now simplyabout beingstickerconscious or not??
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:52:04 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote George, ones person's innovation is something that might another person nothing but migraines. If you think you getting cutting edge innovation and state of the art technology from the uncertified manufacturers I don't know what to tell you except your technology exposure may be a bit narrow. But Patrick, it's NOT uncertified manufacturers as if we're talking about some big greedy corporation. Unless you refer to me. Or the guy down the street. Or even the woman over in the next town. Or THOUSANDS of people all over the world who find that what they want to do is either not supported by something off the shelf, or never even conceived by some engineer, or didn't make it past the marketing and budgeting departments. Download an open and free bit of Linux. Buy a surplus CPU board. Buy whatever radio module you want or need. Put it in a box and VIOLA, you already have more features most WISP Network operators wnat, than Alvarion can figure out how to put in a box. Does it have cutting edge RF qualities? Nope. Does it have Cisco quality routing? Nope. Does it have -100 to +200 degree temperature range? Nope. But, none of those are required. I don't have to the BEST rf front end and features to be successful. I just have to have to have the ones I find necessary, and the ability to get those things changed I need changed. And these people are endlessly exploring and refining mesh networks, customer controls, routing, etc, etc... and THEY NEVER STOP. So, if I want the lowest priced VL stuff to route and do NAT at the customer's end, will Alvarion build it in for me? No? Gee, that's already in the FREE stuff. Huh. Next time you whine that there's uncertified manufacturers, you're talking about the workshops, desks, garages, offices, or even spare bedrooms of THOUSANDS and thousands of people spread all around the country. And we shoulid NOT be stifled by a rigid and corporate-centric regulatory straightjacket. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Time off from WISPA
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:20:31 -0600, John Scrivner wrote John, my condolences at your loss. Please take whatever time you need to deal with things, you will never regret it, and your family and friends will appreciate it. My prayers are with you and your family at a time of hurt and emotional stress. Guys I am taking a vacation from WISPA for a while. I am scheduled to speak in D.C. before New America's caucus at the Senate Office Building before Commerce Committee on this Thursday to lobby for unlicensed access to TV channel spectrum. My Mother-in-law just died unexpectedly about 3 hours ago. I am moving my entire office and NOC over the next 3 days (so far only moved the core router and a couple of extraneous switches, bandwidth appliance, etc.) We still have a mountain of work to complete to have the office moved and completely online on by Feb. 26th which will be the first day at our new office location (and happens to be my birthday). I am now in the process of planning a family funeral and expecting family and such in while I am doing all the rest. I will not be sending anything to this group except possibly requests for support to TV channel space comments and such until Feb 27. I will not be handling any WISPA related business until that time. If anyone has issues that need resolved regarding WISPA billing then email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For email system administration technical support please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For web site issues email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For list issues please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To direct issues to the board you can email a form with your request via the link at http://www.wispa.org. I think I may extend this vacation from WISPA to be as long as March 1. I will not be logging into this email account until then and prefer to be left alone until after that time. I will be unsubscribing from the WISPA lists until my return. I will trust all of you to bring me up to speed on any issues requiring my direct involvement once I return to these lists in March. Kindest regards, John Scrivner President WISPA -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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, Patrick, it's not about the stickers...
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:35:37 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote ...But if you wish to become an advocate for this industry,... LOL, but for better of for worse Mark, that happened a long time ago. As for the FCC protecting Alvarion's interests. Don't make me choke with laughter. The FCC could care a less about the welfare of our company Patrick, you need to parse your reading better. I did not say that the FCC is protecting you. I said the rule structure is protecting the big guys from the small guys, and it needs to be changed. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Getting the sticker.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:40:14 -0500, Rick Smith wrote Anyone understand the full process of getting something certified at the FCC ? No, but what I do know, is that it's several thousand dollars per test routine. Then, when you're done, the ONLY people who can sticker it, is the guy that bought the testing. Thus, if YOU do it, only YOU can assemble and sticker the stuff. Even I follow, EXACTLY what you did to get certified it isn't legal unless you're willing to stand behind the combination and sticker it as built by you. And EVERY change of any kind, if it's a new pigtail, new enclosure, new brand of antenna, new software All requires the whole process again. The FCC has, for other purposes, for both intentional and unintentional radiators, the ability to use DoC, or Declaration of Conformity, which is all about using known commodity parts, which are compliant, assembled, and is considered compliant because they recognize the parts are. I.e. I'd like to send in an RB112 with SR9, pigtail, LMR jumper, and Pac Wireless Yagi to get certified as a combination. And, every other combination I use. As I understand the rules, that would allow me to call that combination legal, as well as giving it a separate product name that I (or anyone I subcontracted) could resell it as, and then put this sticker conscious crap to silence. The rules are such that you're not really going to want to do this. You'll have to provide for the fact that people might try to change that CM9 for a WLM54AG and then it's illegal. Or they might need to use grids instead of a panel, or want a rootenna instead. Then there's the AP use, where EVERY combination has to be certified separately with each sector or omni, blah, blah. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:25:19 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote Steve Stroh wrote: When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. When a WISP slaps together a certified system do they hook it up to a spectrum analyzer? Do they spot check their existing equipment with a spectrum analyzer? Faulty/failing hardware is where most of the real interference issues are going to come from. Well, that and every crappy cordless phone/baby monitor/microwave oven... You hit it. We don't check everything we put up. For that matter, the manufacturers don't check them all either. They merely test the prototype and the rest are assumed good. The certified component idea would put the onus on the various manufacturers to assure that ongoing QC would keep things compliant. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules are now simplyabout beingstickerconscious or not??
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:58:02 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote Mark: But, the FACT of the matter is by slapping together that collection of pieces to make a radio that you will deploy for commercial, revenue service as a telecommunications service provider is ILLEGAL. But Steve, many of these people are NOT deploying a commercial service provider. Some of them are just hobbyists. Some of them are just networking their back yard. Some of them are building community free networks. Some of them are doing it to make money. Some of them are just doing it because they can and find it fun and intersting. Patrick called ALL of these illegal manufacturers. You make a compelling case that the pieces parts systems you're describing are far more innovative than what's currently on the market from the larger vendors... but ultimately irrelevant. How's it irrelevant? I make no claims that because it's a good idea or workable, that the law can't be followed. I'm arguing that it's a change we should try to get done. That you don't THINK putting together pieces parts radios for use in the US without going through the formality of FCC certification as a system SHOULD be illegal is irrelevant. It's relevant, as to why we should lobby for change, Steve. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
And, who ISN'T building to sell right now ? The ones building to own / operate are going to get run out in the next 3 yrs. I'm curious about why you think this, Rick... Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:49:32 -0500, Rick Smith wrote Telcos. They're going to get what they want @ the FCC, which is to put the little guys out of business. It'll just be a matter of time and money, and we don't have much of either. I'd agree with you, if you take the first impression too. Problem is, I don't really know this. Nor do I think it strongly either. Several reasons: 1. We're far enough down the food chain that the telco / cableco wars are going to result in a lot of blood on the ground and it won't much be our blood. 2. Three years is really an eternity when it comes to how rapid change has been will be and lots of perspectives have been adjusting. Of course, wasn't it Marlon that said that that's what people said about us 5 yrs ago and here we are, still, today? Well, I said 2 years ago that I am willing and able to take on ANYONE and can find a way to get myself enough market share to survive against ANYONE...except the government. They're the only people we can't survive. Look at it this way. If you're building to sell, you're building fast and furious right now, just to put yourself in the way of the next one that comes along. At some point you're going to amass enough users to make it more attractive to the Verizons and the SBC's of the world to just buy you out instead of marketing to all your customers, who are really happy campers and don't WANT to switch. If I had 1000 customers today, and was asked to take a half million dollars and walk away... I don't believe I would. I know that seems a bit crazy, but at this point in my life, going to work for someone else... is about as attractive as eating cow pies. However, I think ALL of us should be diligently looking for ways to get beyond just that 'net connection. Video, tv, ( we're all aware of VOIP, of course ), and ... well, what else? We should be building our networks with the idea that there's a future beyond surfing. We can be competitive, especially if we team up in numbers. / Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Makes you feel a bit... errrr.... what's the word?
http://www.arnewsline.org/index.php?option=contenttask=viewid=18Itemid= If you scroll down a bit... Quote: RADIO LAW: SENATOR AIDS UNLICENSED BROADCASER TO RETURN TO THE AIR A high ranking Democrat and leader in the Senate has helped an unlicensed radio station return to the airwaves. This, after the FCC acted to take it off the air following an inspection revealed that it had no license. Amateur Radio Newsline's Norm Seeley, KI7UP, is in Scottsdale, Arizona with more: -- Rod Moses, the owner of Radio Goldfield Broadcast Inc., was given special temporary authority to go back on the air with his low-power radio station in a January 29th letter from the Federal Communications Commission. A letter generated by pressure brought by Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid. Based the action on a complaint filed with the agency, FCC enforcement agents came to Moses' trailer on June 9, 2006. This is the location that also houses his radio station, The FCC engineers inspected the station, and then requested that it be shut it down. Moses complied but then wrote to Senator Reed asking his assistance in getting back on the air. He explained that he had been running the station he calls Radio Goldfield since March 2005. In that time frame he had been broadcasting community news as well as oldies from an MP3 player. He wanted a low power license but had been informed by the FCC that the period to apply had long ago expired. Reed apparently got Moses letter and in turn wrote to the FCC. In his letter to FCC chairman Kevin Martin dated Sept. 1, 2006,, Senator Reed stated that Radio Goldfield made significant public interest contributions to the local community. He told Martin that the unlicensed stations programming brought regular weather reports to this high-desert area of Nevada, where conditions can abruptly change in often times dramatic ways. It did not take the FCC very long to act. It soon wrote to Moses giving him permission to put his unlicensed station back on the air. The letter cites Section 309(f) of the communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the commission to grant the temporary allowance in cases of extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary authorizations in the public interest. For the Amateur Radio Newsline., I'm Norm Seeley, KI7UP, reporting from Scottsdale. End quote. Over the years, pirate radio people have ALWAYS gotten nailed - shut down. One corrupt Senator's wishes and he gets his STA, and probably a license. Anyone think this is a bad omen? I do. Apparently influence and special interests carry the day at the FCC too. Last time the window was open to apply for low power FM translators, a couple of companies applied for HUNDREDS of LPFM translator stations as non- profit. After closing, the company amended all of the applications pending to be commercial. Meaning they got to apply for a broadcast license for free, and now, after being granted modification to the application, they get to sell these granted licenses to commercial stations. They have profited many hundreds of thousands of dollars - and they totally clogged the FCC's licensing system, delaying legitemate license applications by months or years. I'm not trying to flame the FCC... but I do wish to point out that it's a federal agency... subject to political whims and pressure to act outside the interest of the public or nation. Again, federally regulating internet connectivity can result in us being swept into obvlivion at the stroke of a pen, and no amount of grovelling or pleading, or having played nice, will earn us even a moment's reconsideration. Everything we do should be aimed at providing ourselves protection from being wiped out due to pressure from Congress or the Big Boys first, and wishes for favors a very distant 2nd. sigh Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Makes you feel a bit... errrr.... what's the word?
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:30:10 -0800, Jack Unger wrote Mark, I agree completely with your closing sentiment that Everything we do should be aimed at providing ourselves protection from being wiped out due to pressure from Congress or the Big Boys. I don't however understand your beef with this particular FCC action. It's just about undue influence, Jack. Where's the justice here? What about all the other pirate stations that don't happen to get a Senator to write to the FCC to turn the enforcement / fine into an STA? Aren't some of them valuable to their community too? Mr. Moses was and is now again providing a clear and valuable public service to the community of Goldfield Nevada which (if you've ever been there) is a near ghost-town that's fighting to continue to exist as a community. It seems that Mr. Moses's broadcasting is providing a significant service to the town while harming nobody. Goldfield is located in the desert three hours north of Las Vegas and six hours south of Reno. This is a desolate rural area with little to no local broadcasters so no risk of interference to anyone. Hey, I don't object to the idea of inexpensive ways of building a low-power AM station. Had the Senator gotten a dozen colleagues to say man, this is a great idea, let's make a way for tiny stations to spring up in small and remote communities and enhance their community. I'd be all for promoting a better than part 15 .1w set of regulations to allow 1 or 5 or 10 watt community service stations without delays for application windows and onerous recordkeeping, regulatory burdens, blah, blah. That would be justice. That would find a way to do the good, and make sure EVERYONE benefitted. As it is, one rule breaker gets rewarded, one Senator gets media praise, and everyone else gets... nothing. I'd almost call that business as usual. http://maps.yahoo.com/index.php#q1=goldfield%2C+nv.trf=0mvt=mlon=- 117.240601lat=37.714245mag=11 Mr. Moses is harming no one and he is obviously helping his community. I say (figuratively) more power to him. As to your comment that Senator Reid is corrupt... well I'm not even going to go there. I don't want to start ranting about the very real endemic, destructive political corruption that has been on display in our Nation's Capital recently. To end on a positive note, I'll just repeat that I agree with your ending sentiment that we (WISPs) need to do everything to protect ourselves from being wiped out by the Big Boys. Mr. Moses isn't trying to wipe us out, ATT IS trying and has been doing a very good job of that. Let's keep our eyes on the right ball. Respectfully, jack Jack, I guess I sorta dropped the ball here. I just assumed you'd read the same thing between the lines I did. The sway-ability of the FCC with just ONE letter from ONE Senator is very disconcerting. It did not prompt them to adjust rules and create benefit for all. It just ignored the rules and let someone slide because someone thought it would look good. But what if that letter were something harmful to us, but the reason given was good? Frankly, I trust Congress... the feds in general... about... well... ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE IOTA. Government by nature is adversarial to the welfare of the individual. That's why we had (past tense) such an unusual nation, where a government was forced to get OUT of our business turned the people free and they then built the best danged nation to ever exist. I guess that makes me a radical around here. The people from WISPA who travel to DC and lobby for us... well, they come around promoting we have to be nice to them, so they'll be nice to us. The rest of us out here in the hinterland, the hoi polloi, so to speak, just don't find any sense in trusting our future to the whims in DC. Come on, AT LEAST VOICE OBJECTIONS TO INTRUSIONS. This is our business, people. For many of us, it's our life, our retirement, our bread and butter. And we can't muster the guts to tell some over- reaching regulators they're out of line? Why not? What the bloody heck is political about defending what I've worked for for years now? This is my last chance at a retirement. I'm 44 and haven't got $5 to retire on, I used it to start this business. I'd call objecting to ANY potential threat... Enlightened self interest and I don't understand why WISPA and Part-15, etc, are so danged afraid to even admit there's a threat, much less speak up and defend us at least a tiny bit Even now, the representation they've appeared to have made is that we're totally compliant, unquestioning, and welcoming regulatory mandates. One can hardly wonder why I feel so danged betrayed. I gave WISPA plenty of good money when I hadn't had so much as a single paycheck (I still haven't, but there's light at the end of the tunnel), and couldn't raise money to expand my business
Re: [WISPA] Free advertizing
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:57:15 -0800, George Rogato wrote I LIKE it :) I've gotten a bunch... well, HECK, every last customer is from word of mouth and lately we're growing as fast as we can fund it. Not really fast enough, though. I plan on some serious marketing come the end of this school year and my partner gets out of school, so we can both work full time. Now, just to find that extra $10K I need to stock up the equipment and carry me through that 90 days to break even... Got some free adverizing the other day out of nowhere: http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/DuneCityPlug/ Just proves that if you work hard enough word of mouth advertizing works. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Fw: [WISPA] Final Form 477 Consideration
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:43:12 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer wrote Hi All, Forbes asked a good question. I didn't know the answer so I shot his note off to the FCC's 477 director. Here's the entire conversation: - Original Message - From: Ellen Burton To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 477INFO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Final Form 477 Consideration Hi, Marlon, For Forbes's question: We are trying to measure those end user customers who actually get over 256k. If Forbes has merely decided to advertise in a conservative manner and -- in fact -- 90% of his 500 or so customers (or about 450 customers) actually get over 256k, consistently, then the 450 number should be reported. For your own question, Marlon: You would include in your Form 477 all the connections that you sell as 1meg/1meg because they all operate above our 200k threshold consistently. When you get to the five speed tiers (columns f though j), it might be easiest to put them all in column f (i.e., over 200k but less than 2.5meg). But, if you really know that some number of these connections consistently deliver 2.5meg or higher, you would put those connections into column g. Sorry I haven't been back to you on more general matters, this week, but we've been swamped and I haven't been able to talk with appropriate folks here. Ellen That's digging pretty deep into the mechanics of your network. Hmmm, you could get fined if your customer's pages load too fast, it makes you non-compliant with federal regulations bangs head on desk at the stupidity of it all... Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[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 unlicensed spectrum, this waste as many industry types like to call it is shoved to to their face. Thus, the FCC's reluctance in the future to try to specificy any specific technology or means to do anything. This information may explain some industry opposition to unlicensed use of tv whitespace. While we see unlicensed as viable, it's easy to see that arguments against free use can be made, especially when billions of dollars can be obtained through auctioning, and when unlicensed means the kind of interference and unsuitability for WISP use of both 2.4 and 900 ism bands in some areas. What is needed is proposals that walk the line between locking out small enterprise and innovation and allowing degeneration into uselessness due to either excess regulation, or proliferation of noise in a free-for-all. Unlicensed could be made to work. Assuming that the FCC has a type acceptance that only allows WISP type gear to exist. Or a registration type license that coordinates spectrum use and specifies the kind of use it has. The listen before transmit requirement for U-PCS is the most common reason given in my reading, for it's failure to be used. Yet, without a similar mechanism, tv whitespace will become unusable or will have to be exclusive use only. WISP success is mostly due to the creativity of people using 'open' spectrum. What is now needed is a way to improve on that creative deployment capability and at the same time make sure that we are neither politically nor tecyhnologically limited in new spectrum. Just my opinion... Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Form 477 Due Today
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:37:53 -0500, Matt Liotta wrote I'm surprised no one has complained about their use of Microsoft Excel. Form 477 does not work with OpenOffice. They sent me a PDF to fill out instead. I complained to the list at the first filing date, which got me a revised .xls which didn't work either... Go figure. The FCC now requires you to buy MS Office to fill out their forms... (arrrggghhh). Or not. Whatever the case, it complained that the form was protected and that opening it was not allowed. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:14:25 -0600, John Scrivner wrote 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 I'm not sure Rich is right or wrong about the how or why, that u-pcs has flopped here. In fact, as much as I read, I could find little to indicate that industry made much of any input into the standards. They are quite general with only certain minimums and maximums built into them. I believe that 802.11(anything) may actually qualify. Northern Telecom (nortel) was the first to build a u-pcs system, but it was a business class phone system - handsets, pbx, all wireless, designed for businesses. Today I can find no nortel products built for the u-pcs spectrum. As for regulations including small or obscure incompatibilities to prevent the use of one mass produced device in another area, it happens all the time. Witness the FCC's unique connector rule. I'd like to think the FCC has stoppped trying to predict or create thier own vision of technological future, and just respond to the market, instead, but I don't really know if that's true or not. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
I spent some time reading the latest R O about the 3650 spectrum, which is dated back in 2005. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf I am, however, unable to understand what the present status is. Does anyone have that information? What's going on...or not going on? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
That at least SOME people agree with me. http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/regulatory?from=50 The second entry on that page is very interesting. While this entry is a bit out of date, he makes a very interesting point... That the feds are trying to figure out how to mandate the costs of whatever they want on industry... Very much akin to requiring every home to be built with peepholes, and platforms at our windows, so they look in on us without difficulty. Maybe even requiring remote control drapes? Yeah, yeah, I know, you have to be a political radical to NOT want that built into all our homes... but, he has a point. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:03:58 -0800, George Rogato wrote Not to change the subject, but on that page, I fund this a lot more disturbing.. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/vonage_fire.html Dang! Let's just outlaw VOIP! Problem solved. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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, ok, so what's current status?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:30:38 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote 3650 is complicated. Last month's FCC visit stated that they are getting close, and expect answers by Fall :-( Experimental licenses are available, allthough, would likely result in removing gear in a year. Can you point to any info on getting one? I'm hoping personally, that they rule to keep it 100% unlicensed (actually registered / Non-exclusive Free licensing, being almost the same as unlicensed) , 100% in tact, but get rid of contention based. My personal belief is that the delay of 3650 will have helped small WISPs. The reason is that Licensed 3650 in other countries has allowed Manufacturers to start scaling their production and doingtheir research. At the same time it kept Capitol rich US telecom out of the WISP business, while WISPs could take the time to get stronger and larger. Its possible that if they remove contention based, in a year WISPs would have virgin spectrum with LOW DOLLAR WiMax gear that they can afford by teh time the spectrum is usable. If it's left in, we can use variants of 802.11 gear NOW, and for relatively cheap, as well. Heck, whether it's in or out, it appears to be workable. Frankly, I could use it now. I have no issues with distance and eirp for 2.4 or 5.8 as it stands. I mean, I can find ways of dealing with those limitations. I can't deal with the interference nearly as well. I found both UDC's and antennas that could be built to comply for 3650 NOW, and the idea of some interference free backhauls certainly sounds good. Being required to pull them in a year or two doesn't sound catastrophic to me. But Telecoms would still ahve the uncertainty of Unlicensed, detering its use by large scale telecoms. The word is that WiMax does not work in non-Licensed, but as we know, allthough WiMax will undisputedly perform better in Licensed, it will perform JUST AS GOOD as our current legacy TDD gear (such as Trango and Motorola). However, if they insist on keeping Contention based, I personally do not think a manaufacturer will ever make gear to use the spectrum. It would be nice if 802.16H or equivellent succeeded in stepping up to the table (contention based WiMax), but personally I don;t think it will happen in our Small WISP lifetime (meaning before WISPs sell to RollUps :-). Although WISPA's position was to support Contention BAsed, and it was the right thing to do at the time, I beleive that will ahve to be compromised in order to get use of the spectrum. Just because I think so many manufacturers are fighting it. Its the near license Free model that is essential and can't be compromised. My view on this is because 5.8G equivellent spectrum is what is so scarce, and none of the allocations given to use allowed equivellent power, we need the 3650 power, bad. I read the last R O quite extensively and decided that there's no real great advantage to 3650. You can use 25 W ERP, but only if you use a 25 mhz wide channel. The narrower the channel, the lower the erp limits. Exactly how this plays out Thus, using narrower slices of the spectrum is not encouraged. One other apparently odd deficiency is that there's no ERP distinction between P2P and P2MP. You can use an omni at both ends of a P2P link without penalty, nor is there anything to encourage cleaner P2P use like the ISM 2.4 and 5.8 rules. Personally, I think the FCC is holding out, trying to force manufacturers to innovate and embrace the ideas of contention based. They are waiting for a manufacturer to show them it CAN and WILL be done, if they hold firm on the original rules. But if Manufacturers don;t cooperate and make something that can pass the requirement, teh FCC will effectively be squatting on the spectrum, and will probably give up on their ideals, and get pressure to find a way to make the spectrum usable. But that is just my personal feelings, and in no way a representation or confirmation of what the FCC feels. They are prety much at a no comment stage, lsitening to all the arguements and watching how things evolve. Without rules to go by, I don't see ANYONE putting money into it. Any idea what kind of rules for what equipment is allowed? What kind of certifications mechanism? They hinted at use any antenna rules, which is fine, but if we're stuck with a part-15 type of whole assembly certification, we're going back to the must buy only the big boy's solutions which...may never exist, as you say. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status? I spent some time reading the latest R O about the 3650 spectrum, which is dated back in 2005. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov
Re: NOW: 911 Services for VoIP WAS: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:39:32 -0800, Jack Unger wrote For those of us who live in the hinterland... Most rural people do not have free fire departments. Here, if you live outside the city limits and do not pay the fire department fees, they WILL NOT come and put your house or shop or fields or anything else out. But to directly address that idea... For the most part, RFD response is long enough that whether you call them or not, the damage is usually the same. They're pretty good at preventing the spread of a fire, not in rapid response and saving a home that just caught fire. I would have NOT wanted to be the person who put the guy on hold. That would haunt me until death or senility took away my mind. Call on your VOIP phone because the house caught fire? Why not just email the fire department? Gee, I'm sorry, but what on earth was he thinking? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
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 a GSM company due to the decidedly inferior service it provides, to go to one that runs a CDMA network on a lower frequency, because it's decidedly better. We all benefit from that kind of capability and freedom. 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. I have no such emotions. LEt them (europe) have the sucky GSM system. Let providers use whatever they want, and let the best one win. 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). Well, you and I disagree. To follow your thoughts, WISP's would all be required to use the same technology, so we have interoperability between us. Bahhh, forget that noise. 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. No, standards do not. They come and go. Forcing the USE of specific ones is always a negative, when it comes to letting someone invent and sell a better mousetrap. 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. I, for one, happen to think they DID do the right thing. Thankfully, I'm not stuck with GSM garbage and I have a choice to use someone else's better idea for my area. Maybe I'll even find a way to make future 3650 work mobile in my valley and I'll make my own ip phone network for cheap. Or not. But I want the option. That option is essential. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives
Re: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:51:00 -0600, John Scrivner wrote If that's Twomey's word, then that's better than giving Bullit 200 bucks, or whatever the price of his manual is. I merely wanted to see what backhauls worked like in the absense of noise, but I did want to load them with real life traffic, too. It would be a waste of time and money to build fake traffic for testing. I advise against this as you cannot use it for anything but testing (no commercial use at all). Any other use is against the law. Our WISPA attorney, Kris Twomey, can set you up if you want to run some 3650 tests. It is fairly easy to get an experimental license. It just won't make you a red cent. Scriv Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
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. And? I just don't see a downside that isn't more than offset by opportunity for rapid and mostly unrestrained progress forward. 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. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. These things are guided by people with brains. Though most of us are pretty darn slow and dimwitted ( aw, heck, even me sometimes ), WE STILL DO USE OUR HEADS or we get out of the business eventually. These things will, because we're capable of reason and thought, eventually sort themselves out. And individuals are ALWAYS more capable than a committee, at using judgement and being more responsive and making decisions and ... well, pretty much better at everything. Which is why a WISP with no money and 4 people can take on the telco and cableco and WIN a share of the market. Which would never happen, if we're all stuck with doing it all the same way. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich It's always interesting... Mark Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
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. And? I just don't see a downside that isn't more than offset by opportunity for rapid and mostly unrestrained progress forward. 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. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. These things are guided by people with brains. Though most of us are pretty darn slow and dimwitted ( aw, heck, even me sometimes ), WE STILL DO USE OUR HEADS or we get out of the business eventually. These things will, because we're capable of reason and thought, eventually sort themselves out. And individuals are ALWAYS more capable than a committee, at using judgement and being more responsive and making decisions and ... well, pretty much better at everything. Which is why a WISP with no money and 4 people can take on the telco and cableco and WIN a share of the market. Which would never happen, if we're all stuck with doing it all the same way. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich It's always interesting... Mark Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:04:51 -0800, George Rogato wrote wispa wrote: So, who set the standard for toilet paper roll size? Actually Mark, as far as I can tell there is a standard for toilet paper rolls But you can buy TP in a wide variety of sizes, density, etc. Same for paper towel rolls and even paper 8.5 x 11 Kind of makes it easy to use in printers from all manufacturers. You asked :) paper is also available in a wide array of things OTHER than those standards. Those standards are not set and mandated to be used by some regulatory agency. Heck, Avery set standards for stickers, and guess what... most people follow them. But some don't. I can still get stickers in the size I want, though :) -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:39:06 -0500, Carl A jeptha wrote Now I have to ask seeing that we are talking about rear-ends, isn't that paper for the printer a little tough on the behind, not a place to have a paper-cut you know. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha I almost had to send you the bill for cleaning my breakfast off the LCD monitor Good one, Carl... heh. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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....
boring others maybe we should continue any follow-up off-line. Actually, at this point in our industry, I think this is a good debate to have. You long for the one-fits-all approach and want to be that one. I absolutely refuse to follow anyone else. I'm going to do my own thing, and I admire those who try new and different. If there was only one type of wireless gear, what room is there for the little guy? None. The people with the deepest pockets will own it all, because there's no significant advantage other than size and financing. You point out that when cut loose from the position of a monopoly, many American businesses were unprepared to compete in the open market of concepts and ideas and had little appetite for making the next big leap. But we'll win that. Living in a harsh world makes us stronger. Frankly, I don't want to pay the price of a cell phone mass produced here. It's a commodity. But I would bet that, like WCDMA, the better ideas come from here. And I'm willing to bet that the NEXT real jump in technology comes from here, too. And that some single cellular provider here... will pioneer it first. And eventually, the rest of the world will follow. Or maybe not. But here is where opportunity lies. Not there. Here, where opportunity is open. I think this is why there's a WISP industry at all. Because the standards types can't think that far out of the box. Someday, I predict, the big boys will come to our way of thinking. But we'll already be on to the next wave, the next horizon, the next challenge. I think we, as a loosely associated industry, should not be seeking 'standards' and sameness, but instead, should already be looking that next big leap. That next mountain to climb, that next chasm to leap. I know personally, I'm already thinking beyond wireless internet. What next? What unknown can I think up, and dive into? That's where we should all be. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
You can take his views however you wish... But NN legislation is probably on the way, and this could get real ugly...REAL ugly real fast. When DC takes on a problem, whether or not it really exists, it turns political instantly, and we could be the ones that get whipsawed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on the agreement I make with my customers, should it not? I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is No, then perhaps we should rethink what we really want. I say that a lack of neutrality by other providers is opportunity for me, not a negative. And that as much as a subscription to your local newspaper doesn't give you the right have every news story, columnist, and cartoon delivered to your door, nor does subscribing to a tiered internet service. What do you think? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:01:16 +, John J. Thomas wrote Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone? I have dialed 911 and had the call dropped. I guess I should sue the cell phone company and lobby Congress to ensure 911 calls cannot be dropped. Or maybe that's patently absurd. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Ok, so, unique commentary on WISP business.
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/10548 The guy thinks that Clearwire will do well becuase they do NOT bundle. I have no personal experience, but from my area, the service is more costly than mine and performs poorly - or so says the few people who claim to know someone who uses or were going to use it. Interesting take, too. Not bundling gives us a clear advantage in the niche market. h. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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, ok, so what's current status?
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:40:33 -0500, John Valenti wrote Jack Patrick: thanks for all the info on 3650 status. This type of response is why I'm on this mailing list. That March 10, 2005 announcement is near-and-dear to me, since that is what started me on the WISP path. I haven't closely followed the progress on 3650, so when I saw the XR3 info I thought it might be happening soon. Those thoughts were pushed along further when I saw the Part-15 org people selling a help get licensed on 3650 manual -- their webpage doesn't indicate to me that it is still experimental. http://www.part-15.org/sales/3650manual.asp Sounds like I should plan testing under my ham license (~3400MHz) rather than clogging up the FCC with a bogus STA application. My interest is propagation thru our Michigan foliage, so I would want to test this summer. But maybe someone could just tell me what to expect - should it be similar to 2.4GHz? You gotta learn to read carefully. Part-15's site says that Part 15 AND REDLINE and part-90 (defunct) are teaming up to create a manual to teach WISP's everything they need to know in order to get licensed for 3650. I dunno if you're aware of it or not, but REdline already has P2P and P2MP equipment that is 3650 capable. With this slant - Redline being a sponsor, that is - it casts a whole new light on the notion of who is teaching what about what. I suspect it has something to do with teaching licensing procedures and protocol, and about the use of Redline's equipment. Perhaps Redline is doing some kind of cooperative effort for testing 3650 equipment. -John (kd8bqx) PS - any chance I could convince folks to trim their responses? I read this list in digest mode, 80% of the digest is noise. :-) Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:35:29 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote Hi All, We have a meeting set up for the 22nd in Va. I have 4 people set to go to it at this time but I'd like a 5th. I'm after a network admin type. Anyone have the time and recourses available? Or if I missed your offer earlier, please let me know. I have to get info to the FBI ASAP so if you can send a network admin to this meeting (and possibly join our calea standards committee) please let me know. WISPA member companies will have first crack at this, but I'll conceder others as well. While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they have NEVER even considered the notion (and probably do not care in the slightest) that what they do could devastate people's individual lives or futures. Nor do I think they care at all about anything but their own convenience and political futures. I doubt a single person involved on the regulator's end considers that since they decided to take on and regulate an industry which is probably populated with the highest percentage of small operators (1 to 5 people) of any industry they've ever even dreamed of regulating, what they do is PERSONAL to thousands of people, and directly will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Living in the isolated and unreal world of Washington DC does that to people. I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it means to be a small, one or two man operation living out in the hinterland, where the rubber meets the road. There will be small and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? WISPA's just bleating and going along like blind sheep. I STILL cannot believe we're walking into this without a single official objection from WISPA or the other organizations supposedly on our side. I guess I should not be surprised. Expedience has become the religion of our times. Like rolling over and playing dead is going to earn us brownie points and favors later? Don't count on it. Will I help law enforcement track down and prosecute people who are breaking the law or otherwise a threat? No question at all, of COURSE I WILL. I will NOT pre-tap thier connection in any way that compromises my security or their security, costs me significantly, or is in my view, unconstitutional (which is pretty much anyting done ahead of time). That, as a citizen, is my duty. If that costs me my future and business, it's a small price to pay for what people have given their lives before me to preserve. If I can preserve that for a few people for while... I WILL DO IT. Damn, people, STAND UP FOR ONCE. mark at neofast dot net neofast, Inc, wireless internet for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:36:20 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote Sigh. First, the mission statement for WISPA, just so's we're all on the same page about motivations: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association is dedicated to promoting and improving the WISP industry. Second, if you don't like it, join us in our efforts at the regulatory level. Sitting out there whining and tossing FUD around does nothing but waste our time and keep you from doing installations so that you can get more than $100 in the bank. With $100 in the bank, you know I can't. Third, WE don't REALLY know EXACTLY what WE have to do. That's part of what the FBI meeting is about. It's not about kowtowing to the FBI, DOJ, FCC etc. It's about making sure that WE can tell YOU what is going to keep your tit out of the ringer with those people. It's also about working with them to make sure that they don't expect things that are unreasonable or pass new regs that have no regard for the realities of our industry niche. I applaud your optimism. I don't share it, but at least you go hopeful that things work well, and that's a good thing, I think. Fourth, certainly I know I'm not speaking for all WISPs. I'm speaking for WISPA. YOU get to choose whether or not you wish to agree. You can always file a statement saying you don't agree and why. The FCC loves to hear from us. Last I knew the IEEE never asked for my opinion on a standard they put in place, but I use them all day every day anyhow. Of course. But.. sadly not the same. A LOT of WISPA members filed that they intended to use whatever standard was developed - that's what Twomey's filing stated. I have a terrible problem with putting on paper I'm going to do something when I have not a clue what that will be. Sixth, don't be an ass. We're putting in our own time and usually our own money to help make this entire industry better. I don't care to be insulted for the privilege of taking away from my customers and my family. I didn't write anything to you that I thought could be even be misconstrued as an insult to you. You know me well enough to know I don't do that. I just wanted you to understand just how some of us who CANNOT go react to these things, and if you find that relevant moment, to pass it on. Seventh, I don't disagree with that you've said. I also think that the seatbelt laws are so much BS. But I've paid enough tickets for not wearing one that I have given in and wear mine now. I always have worn mine. But I don't think it should be law. I think the law is wrong and intrusive. I didn't need the law to wear it, and the law didn't change a thing in my mind. In the mean time, one of these days I'm gonna run for Congress and I'll work to restore individual rights and responsibility. Till then I'll do the best I can to vote for people that respect my ability to lead my own life and my own choices. I'll also follow their dumb a$$ed rules so that I don't go broke paying tickets or end up in jail over it. And here's your chance to pass on just what people think directly to those who write this stuff... and doesn't even come from you personally, making it NOT personal. Eighth, some of the things that you say people don't have to do, the lawyers constantly say that we do. Sorry, but I'm gonna put my weight on their interpretations of the rules than yours. Let's not get sidetracked, Marlon. You have both an opportunity, and will bear the weight of the responsibility, of what happens, at least in some people's minds - be it good or bad. I'm realistic enough to know that what the future brings is not REALLY in your hands, but I do hope you have some influence. Not a lot of people will step up and take that on. If I didn't tell you what I thought, and give you the opportunity to represent that, SHOULD IT BE RELEVANT to your mission, then that's my fault. I said before, I don't have to lecture you, you've been where I am, you know it as well as the back of your hand. I wish you luck. For all our sakes. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:44:56 +, Ron Wallace wrote I'm with you Marlon. I support your position. However, if I am all the support you have you better use a cane. Ron Wallace I dunno if you've met Marlon, but he's got pretty decent legs of his own... he'll be alright :) Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Was CALEA, WAY off topic video and commentary.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:05:35 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote Sigh. This thread and sparring going at the isp-wireless list on a similar thread shows just how difficult it can be for small WISPs to agree on any one issue, much less all UL wireless broadband providers across all provider segments. Even the personally-funded best of intentions (e.g. Marlon's nine years of efforts), bring rants and rages. Now imagine the no-win situation the FCC faces in trying to keep WISPs even moderately contented. Keep us contented? Ummm... That's easy. One statement to Congress, the DOJ, and the FBI. Information technology innovation and divergence has resulted in such a massive diversity of technological and physical means of delivering broadband, we believe it is impossible to uniformly intercept internet content, track users, and regulate connectivity methodology without severe disruption to our most vibrant industry. There, problem solved. Besides, CALEA never applied to ISP's anyway, so ruled the FCC, before it did a double take and now tries to hold two conflicting positions before regulators, concerning ISP's. We are, or are not, depending on the issue, a regulated industry now, with nary a logical justification for this obviously inconsistent ruling. They created this mess all on their own, and some really NASTY cat-herding efforts might cause them to re-think things in the first place, and go back to their original, supportable and consistent position that we are NOT telecommunications. As I say, it's like herding cats during a lightning storm. But I do so love this business -- never a dull moment! Patrick Leary Alright, you forced it. (snicker) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6572941025419743765 Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:25:06 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote Do you want wireless routers? http://3btech.net/chwl80wirofo.html I have been installing these galore, they're FCC certified, and for a cheap consumer router, have the quick setup, and nice set of access control features that work real well for a customer side install. If for some reason the link doesn't work, the part number is wlb-2203. Tehy're 802.11b only, but that's sufficient for internet use. Range is excellent, and I've had no failures yet, no lockups and no crashes that I know of. And at $18 each including shipping, they beat linkcrap and netcrap completely. I've had more issues with failing netgears and buggy linksys than with ANYTHING else. I am needing to order some customer routers in quanity. I have been using the linksys wrt54gc and really like them. Do you guys have suggestions of vendors to use? Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:19:23 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote I have around a half dozen in place, and recently bought a dozen. Doesn't even come with an ethernet cable nor printed manual, but they seem to work just fine. those will do nicely! I order a few of them to try out before I put in a big order thanks! On 3/7/07, wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:25:06 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote Do you want wireless routers? http://3btech.net/chwl80wirofo.html I have been installing these galore, they're FCC certified, and for a cheap consumer router, have the quick setup, and nice set of access control features that work real well for a customer side install. If for some reason the link doesn't work, the part number is wlb-2203. Tehy're 802.11b only, but that's sufficient for internet use. Range is excellent, and I've had no failures yet, no lockups and no crashes that I know of. And at $18 each including shipping, they beat linkcrap and netcrap completely. I've had more issues with failing netgears and buggy linksys than with ANYTHING else. I am needing to order some customer routers in quanity. I have been using the linksys wrt54gc and really like them. Do you guys have suggestions of vendors to use? Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:18:11 -0500, Rick Harnish wrote Yeah but Mac, we shore do enjoy dat weeziana drawl. You have a special way with words that few can match, not even JohnnyO. :P what a kidder. Mac has never had a PC thought in his life, I'm sure :) 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 Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:02 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi Thank you Marlon! I can now delete my saved response that I had composed earlier and was contemplating sending. Anyone can respond better than I as I seem to have trouble portraying what I am thinking in a really politically correct fashion. It is one of my biggest faults. (other than 12 others that come to mind real fast) Mac Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
, nor have I played one on Television, but I think I have a fairly firm grip on reality. (Why is there Air?) grin I think we should be looking hard at what our older-bigger cousins in the ISP industry are doing and be prepared to join in with them for injunctive relief - IF we are asked to SPEND anything preemptively to serve the cause of law enforcement. We are NOT Monopoly Tel-Co s. Law Enforcement Agencies are in-fact the ones with the guns and badges, not us. I didn't run for Sheriff, I was not elected to the office, I have taken no oath of office. I am therefore NOT a law enforcement officer, entitled to monetary compensation. I WILL IN NO WAY IMPED the work of Law Enforcement but I cannot LEGALLY be compelled to do it FOR them at my own expense. Who of us have enough money to hire the lawyers to fight the federal government? Please Notice I am NOT discussing the value or virtue of the law enforcement activities - That's politics, and has nothing to do with the LAW or it's execution. So what the heck is my point? I Honestly believe, IF some Policy is promulgated that costs US money or time (which IS WORTH money) to do THEIR work, it WILL be held unlawful on several grounds. I THINK that supporting EFF or others that share our concerns and raising these points to them may put this dragon in a cage. I feel certain that the BIG KIDs are thinking this way. I think we should too. That, and thirty nickels will buy you a cup of coffee. Dave Brenton Interesting thinking, Dave. Glad you took the time to write it down clearly and carefully. Let's hope people are reading. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:48:53 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote Hi, I just ordered one to try... can you tell me if there is remote management options like with the Linksys routers and what port it runs on and if it can be changed? Travis Microserv I'm pretty sure they do. It's been a while since I looked at that, and my customers are all behind NAT, so I can't reach the routers. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:22:57 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is. Yes, the law is what it is. It was NEVER written to apply to ISP's nor internet services. Those are additions to the law that the FCC tacked on at a whim. The FCC has no authority to write law, only Congress can do that. This is why the FCC now holds contradictory views on whether an ISP is an information service or a telecommunications service. Depending on the issues, like taxes vs CALEA, we are, or we are NOT a telecommunications service. Understand? We are and we are not, all at the same time, so that it's convenient to require CALEA, but they can exempt us from other regulations, because we're not. THIS WILL BE RESOLVED, and not likely in our favor unless we begin arguing back! You will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, you are intent on NOT following it Actually, I am following the law, it's the FCC that playing games here, attempting to cross a chasm in two leaps. This is why I keep saying we MUST object. I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only purchase one more CPEHope you charge enough at install time to get the next one. You don't need to worry about my business issues, Butch. Trust me, we're in very sold shape. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office more grief...than they can handle? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. Yeah, you missed a lot, Butch. Like how fast the FCC is buried just by frivolous applications for 3650 STA's...??? Remember Patrick's comments... understaffed, underbudgeted.. know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for it). You'd not like me in politics. I'm always this defensive of principle and always this blunt. I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it And just who is doing the feeding, Mark? Marlon? The FCC? WISPA? One must sit back and ask himself, who stuck our collective heads up in front of the regulators, asked for stuff, and then never even said boo when the FCC started making capricious rulings? and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? WISPA's just bleating
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
approval of the notion that lawful intercept is necessary and that we're certainly willing to do so, but that it MUST be done right. We do this, and we gain stature, with the FCC, with Congress, with the public. It won't be pretty, it won't be fun, and it can certainly turn sour. You just can't lose when you stand up for doing the RIGHT thing. It just requires leadership, clear stands on principle, and the nerve to actually take a stand, rather than just go along with the expedient means. I beg of you... Rethink... GROW A PAIR already. Get a backbone. Do the right thing. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:32:02 -0800, Alan Cain wrote Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Over time, I have attempted to respond to a number of things, and I NEVER find the page to do so. The FCC has one of the most obscure organizational methods I have ever run into. I remember having to follow someone else's link every time. They do listen... I found some things I said quoted near verbatim in the RO on 3650. maybe permanent links on the WISPA homepage for each filing would be good. Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! I don't have a cute secretary like Mary, Marlon. **200738030387** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] news
, competitive quality combinations that have NO limits on the innovation and imaginations of the operators or programmers or individuals who can innovatively create their own unique and yet compliant solutions and services. I urge the FCC to unstrangle the innovation of WISP's, ISP's, Information services with a ruleset which encourages, rather stifles, the free and open innovation of technology. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Ooops, TV Whitespace filing subject change
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:35:07 -0700, wispa wrote I filed a comment on TV Whitespace today... I had to think about it for a long time, first. Here's my comments, probably not in good format, due to the webmail interface. == In this proceeding, the FCC is proposing to allow unlicensed use of TV Whitespace. The stated goal is to promote broadband and consumer and business information services - presumably data, video, internet and other networking applications. I highly agree with this idea. There is one drawback to this notion - that being that in this spectrum space, almost any consumer item that might be purchased retail, would have extensive reach. The characteristic that makes this spectrum valuable and absolutely essential for the deployment of ubiquitous wireless services, is it's ability to penetrate outdoor obstacles, such as foliage, buildings, etc. This same characteristic also creates a huge challenge, in that if a vast array of consumer items, like cordless phones, baby monitors, in home networking, or even on-campus networking is deployed in a non-directional topology, the interference reach is enormous, and will easily result in the first two or three users of any particular frequency spectrum preventing any additional use or deployments, due to wide area interference issues. Unlicensed, at least to me, implies the ability for anyone, anywhere, to use this spectrum for ANY purpose. In the unlicensed spectrum, where Part-15 rules apply, in 900 mhz, 2.4 mhz, and 5 ghz, interference is rampant, often from devices which are spectrum hogs in that they use all available spectrum to accomplish very little. Often these devices are designed for robustness in interference rejection, which means they are relatively unaffected, but cause total disruption for any other use. While appropriate spectrum (well below 1 ghz) is required if the Commission's stated goals of ubiquitious information services deployments can possibly become realized in any fashion, the Commission needs to use judgement and careful thought about rules governing its use. Non-exclusive licensing, similar to that proposed for 3650 - 3700 Mhz, requiring licensing be restricted solely to information services would accomplish this. Alternatively, rules which allow only outdoor type of digital information or networking equipment to be used would accomplish the same. Additionally, both TV Whitespace and 3650-3700 mhz present an opportunity for incredibly rapid innovantion, provided that some small adjustments to equipment certification rules could be made. Across the nation, thousands of small, community, block, neighborhood, or even free public access networks have been built on commodity WiFi equipment. These networks are often not technically compliant with Part-15 rules, because individuals were able to innovate with software replacement, or removed consumer shells from retail or surplus retail (often obsolete) products and then reconstructed them suitable for outdoor use. Today, commodity networking equipment cost is a tiny fraction of that of proprietary. It's often built on open standards, which has encouraged programmers (who may have no RF understanding ) to write software that, coupled with a pre-built networking modules and an inexpensive processor becomes a device that for very little money has technological capabilities that exceed even the imagined limits of just a decade ago. Often, they exceed the capabilities of any commercial products available, at any price. However, technically, all this is illegal, even though components which have already been tested and found completely compliant and within standard limits have their environment changed, and thus no longer technically comply with the certification methodology and rules. These illegal devices often have technical capabilities that vastly exceed any certified products that a single manufacturer can create, because they are the collaborative work of thousands of people world-wide, using free tools and free software, and open standards. I cannot more strongly encourage the FCC to consider a scheme of certification for WISP, Information SErvices Providers, etc, equipment that takes advantage of this incredibly enormous potential of the open and free world of ideas, talent, and innovation. This could be accomplished with a componentized rules, where a nearly fully self-contained RF module, like a mini-pci card, is certified compliant to an RF profile, including out of band emissions, etc, and can then be controlled by anyone's software, who can then certify that it does not operate the rf module outside of it's certified limits. Then, antenna manufacturers could then certify the gain, and directionality and rf profiles of thier products, which would allow a simple profile matching and limiting process which would then produce a huge array
Re: [WISPA] Justice Department Takes Aim at Image-Sharing Sites
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:41:29 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote Wouldn't this be the equivalent of requiring all store owners to install surveillance cameras and retain the tapes for 2 years just in case law enforcement might need the footage for a conviction of some crime that may happen in the future? Excellent analogy. The difference being that there's WalMart and Kmart and hundreds of other well funded retailers with lawyers who'll tell them to stuff it. The little guys get nailed instead, because we haven't got a raft of lawyers waiting around on retainer for something to do. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] walmart rfid
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:12:13 -0400, Rick Smith wrote no, 900 mhz rfid would be 20mhz bands. They MUST be exceeding EIRP, tho, because I've never seen problems with rfid at close ranges like that, and not having good reads with normal, or even less than normal power. Problem is, rfid is 100% tx/rx 100% of the time. How far away is this from you ? I guarantee it's a piece of bad equipment - cable or such - on their end, leaking. Certified letter or bb gun, your choice... ;) Actually, that may not be true. I did a lot of reading up on RFID, and the loading doc version that Walmart uses requires full EIRP to work, because they are intending to read all theindividual tags inside of cartons, containers, etc, and these are passive devices, needing the RF field to create the power for the tag to transmit. Additionally, some of the systems are FHSS and use the full spectrum, including being maximum eirp at the same time. Walmart won't talk to you, because they've been assured by the RFID maker that there's nothing you can do to them. However, that doesn't preclude the more weighty matters of retailing... Like bad publicity. Like, getting your local paper to carry a story about how WalMart installed an RFID inventory tracking control and it took X number of people's internet connections away due to interference, and they won't even discuss mitigation with you. Mitigation of interference is a big thing, actually, because they need to install several of these devices in some instances, within a single building. They accomplish this by sheilding - metal shielding to curtain off the rf emissions, so that each station can work isolated form the others. Walmart is aware of this, as is the maker of the RFID system. I would suggest that after some negative publicity, they might be willing to talk to you about sheilding, especially since you could point a focused beam at them and cause serious inventory control problems for them, as well. The problem they will have, is that the RFID tag outputs are measured in a few microwatts, and even at a few feet, interference need not be all that strong to cause problems. I would approach them at this angle, explaining it's in their interest to sheild their system, because your equipment, if moved, can definitely interfere with them. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
, CALEA is improperly applied to ISP's. They need to go back to congress, get Congress to vote on tapping internet connections, and then come back to us to ask US how best to do this. And let Congress ante up the money for doing so. That's nothing different than how CALEA was concieved and written for Telco's. And the half billion Congress voted to fund reimbursement was the same thing... Absolutely required. What they're trying to do to us, is no different than if the cops stopped you and demanded you fill up their cruiser with fuel and buy them new tires, so we can catch the bad guys. This is not a cost of doing business as some are trying to imply. This is a federal mandate for public purpose, mostly applied to individuals and small business. But you say there's already a lot of those. So? This isn't the forum to debate those. This is teh forum to debate WISP's and mandates. And we need to look out for US. There's nobody else to fight for us, we MUST do it ourselves, whether it's resisting mandates or defending our ability to conduct business freely. If the government wants us to deliver services in a ubiquitous fashion, and we need spectrum that works that way, it is UNRELATED to this issue, entirely. Pandering to them in one matter won't buy you 2 seconds of consideration in another. And what if it did? What are you willing to trade on MY behalf to get what YOU want? And what right have you to do that? As I mentioned to Marlon... What you say in DC will have to speak for me. he knows my thoughts. And what people offer to comply to will be offered for all, from their viewpoint. I speak for me, and me alone. We can agree or disagree. But let's not see any more of this his opinions aren't valid for this industry crap. That's the fastest way I know of to kill an organization trying to put diverse people together and get them to try to work together or agree on something. The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim the authority to do something invasive. I seem to remember that they felt CARNIVORE was legal and justified. Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm betting he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a Republican run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security. I'm not being partisan, here. I don't talk about socialism, communism, political parties, or anything else. Just ideas, and how they affect us. Is it political or practical? I doubt anything in dealing with government is not political in some way. Mostly, I just look at the bottom line of the risks vs opportunity column and note those things that aren't going my way. And I further note that some people who claim to be my friend are rather in favor of some stuff that's solidly in risk column, and there's NO corresponding opportunity to offset it. No matter how cynical we might be about politics or political issues, THAT equation is not one any of us deem irrelevant. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:10 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote The question is... if we're not providing VOIP service, doesn't this apply to the VOIP provider, and not me? How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf . . . j o n a t h a n Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Clearwire stock dropping
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:55:31 -0500, Brad Belton wrote Correct and that I believe is what Matt's point is. Too early to kick CLWR to the curb for at least two reasons: (1) short term market downturn (2) additional 4M shares issued Both of these items can and often will soften a stock value. All that said I think $20 - $24 a share is ridiculous for CLWR. I expect CLWR will bump back up maybe even beyond the IPO price once the market bounces back. The smart money will jump ship saving their skin and the stock will turn downward from that point on. Clearwire has lost more than $460 million during its four-year existence. The company generates about $100 million in annual sales... Ok, Clearwire expects to continue to build out. They expect to spend 1.1 billion, and market hacks expect them to triple the customer base over the next year or so. So, even next year, they're going to spend between 3 and 4 times their gross revenue. AND, they have 664 million debt, too. If they stopped building out and concentrated on sales, I don't know, and nobody seems to know, how much the'll be spending. In other words, nobody seems to know how much of this spending is fixed cost and how much is expansion. Their own claim, is that expenses are near 300 million annual. However, they're apparently not concentrating on market growth, as annual sales only went from 67 to 100 million for all of '06. I read elsewhere that almost all of that growth is due to equipment sales, not customer sales. Then the next article contradicts that. http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070308/29050_id.html?.v=2 http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2007/03/12/clearwire-burns-cash-churns- investors.aspx?source=eptyholnk303100logvisit=ynpu=y http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/clearwire-shares-pummeled-path- profit/story.aspx?guid=%7BBFAAD8AC%2D3B2E%2D48D4%2DA100%2DDCEC9ACDCAE4% 7Dsiteid=yhoodist=yhoo Certainly McCaw can afford this type of bleeding, but for how long and more importantly how long will Wall Street wait to see the light at the end of the tunnel? Will CLWR ever bask in the sunshine? Long term I only see a decline in value unless they start producing profits real quick! CLWR isn't making any money and doesn't have a bright future of EVER making any money. Hope I'm wrong because a CLWR failure is a failure for fixed wireless as a whole. Actually, it appears they could make money. But the question is, will they stay for ever in the build out mode and spend themselves totally out of money, without marketing to and finding enough customers to pay the bills? I had a potential investor, who was the opposite mind of the CLWR management, who insisted that I not expand to any of my yet not deployed but originally planned sites until I had completely maxed out capacity on everything now in place. Oddly enough, the more sites I have in strategic locations, the greater success I have at potential customer's sites. Then again, I'm not just putting up every location I can find. I figure I can't expect to get more than 3% market penetration in the areas where DSL and/or cable exist, and probably less, and not more than 30% where I'm the lone provider. With a target size of 600-1100 customers in the next 3 years, this means I have to either target 4000 residences with nothing else available, or 40,000 where there's competition. There's more than 4000 homes in the area I'm willing to expand to. The trick is that many of them are isolated areas of a 1, 5, 30 square miles, and we have to continue to do inexpensive expansions to hit those areas. I have a good 1/2 of those covered now, and we're going to add the next 1/4 this spring. If I have 1000 customers, I'll have about $40K a month rolling in, with fixed expenses (not including wages and labor) of about 10%. So, does Clearwire's model sound better than mine, when it comes to likelyhood of survival? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Clearwire stock dropping
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:09:20 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote wispa wrote: Ok, Clearwire expects to continue to build out. They expect to spend 1.1 billion, and market hacks expect them to triple the customer base over the next year or so. So, even next year, they're going to spend between 3 and 4 times their gross revenue. What is interesting is that year over year their revenue is currently growing at 125%, but their expenses are growing at 43%. -Matt It depends on who provides you the figures... It looks like they really can't lose unless they just spend themselves broke without aquiring more customers. I know they spent or spend big time around here, and for the most part, customer satisifaction has been rather mixed. I don't directly c ompete with them, except for a small overlap on the edge of what I consider to be my market, and from what the guy who tried to get hooked up with them told me, he's a whale of lot happier with me than them. Apparently not every technical hurdle has been overcome. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New Certification list
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:11:13 -0800, George Rogato wrote Hey everyone, Jack Unger and myself have started this group to create a process of getting uncertified systems certified. The reason for the certification is to help bring wisps into compliance and legitimize their operation. Great idea. I subscribed. I'm definitely interested in the process. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] User check program
Very nice Larry. Let us all know what we can do to help. PC Blaze Broadband -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:08 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Travis has been good enough to be the Alpha tester of the User check program over the past few days. BTW, I have generically named it Internet Monitor. I'm attaching two updated screenshots. I've added a few features since my last post. These features include: (1) ISP customization via a configuration file for the IP addresses for each of the test target locations. (2) ISP customization Threshold settings (3) ISP customization of Logo and contact information (4) Upload speed testing** Note you will need to add a php or asp file to your webserver to support upload testing. (5) I rearranged the order of the tests to more closely reflect nearest hop to furthest hop (6) The system now detects the user's local IP address, netmask, gateway, and DNS settings. (7) Timeouts and ping responses of less than 1ms are now properly reported. I've run into a few issues and I thought I'd see if anyone has a suggestions regarding these issues: (1) For purposes of Deployment, this program requires .Net 2.0. The install program will check for the existence of .Net 2.0 on the target machine and will attempt to install it if it is not already installed. Unfortunately, .Net 2.0 won't install on any machine older than Windows98 and won't install on WinXP machines until Service Pack 2.0 or newer is installed. So, the .Net requirement is somewhat of a pain. The Installation program will work easily on machines that already have .Net or on machines that don't have .Net but have all of the prerequisites for installing .Net. Hopefully that will be the majority of installs?!?@ But, in an ideal world, we'd like to avoid installing .Net, so the question is this: does anyone know how to compile and deploy a Visual Basic application without requiring .Net to be installed on the target machine? Or if that's not possible, does anyone have any suggestions as to other visual languages which DO NOT USE .NET and which might be used for future ports of this application. (2) One of the features of this application is a speed test. As you might imagine, sometimes speed tests will fail to complete (due to congestion, poor connection, etc.). For this reason, it becomes imperative that I create some sort of timeout mechanism so that the attempted upload or download halts with no results if the test is taking too long. I'm using the webclient.uploadfile and webclient.downloadfile methods to accomplish these tests. Does anyone know whether there is a way to force this method to halt upon a preset timeout? If not, does anyone have a good example of code to place a process in background in Visual Basic? Thanks, Larry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] User check program
Good points Tom, particularly about the speed test. I also like the hints button for common trouble shooting suggestions. Tough to write the text, and harder to get the user to read it, but might reduce a few trouble calls. Speaking from our perspective, we are looking for a small and simple diagnostic tool to help residential and small business users self diagnose the common problems, and to make it much easier for the level 1 help desk to work over the phone. Local Wi-Fi and other local gear are half the calls. Some per-user customization feature in addition the global settings common to all customers would be REALLY great. But what is really not all that important is the speed test. I'm not saying a speed test is not a valid testing tool in the right situation but we rarely see problems with a link that can't be seen with a ping test. Of course some customers *love* doing speed tests! That is another reason such tests cause more problems than they solve. As you pointed out, designing an accurate speed test is not trivial. I'm happy to see Larry has moved the speed test to a separate tab with a separate start button but I would really like to see an option to disable and hide the entire speed test tab with a setting in the .ini file. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this testing tool might cause *more* trouble calls, not less, if it doesn't work correctly, or can't be tailored correctly for the particulars of a given network. Maybe Larry can make a second stand alone program for speed testing later, or the WISP can just host one of several that already exist and let the user run it from a browser. I would rather see Larry focus his limited time on a slick way to push customized settings out to each user. About this email address field where test results are sent. Why is this even needed? Results should be sent directly to a dedicated central address. Whoever is on duty handling tech calls can get the results as needed. This address can be set in the .ini file. There is no need for the user to send the results to his buddy or wherever. The program is branded and configured for the specific WISP and that network. No reason to have another setting for the user to mess up. Besides, emailing the results is fine for now but email is far from trouble free. Rarely do network problems prevent email from working but users break their own email clients all the time. Eventually it would be best if the results are written to a web server, or sent by ftp or maybe someday sent over a unique port directly to a specialized companion program Larry writes for a server at the NOC (rel 2 Larry ;). Thanks for your work on this Larry. It is looking very nice. We are excited to see it finished. PC Blaze Broadband -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Two comments... When we diagnose a client, we are trying to discover six things... 1) Is the PC's Pri NIC active and configured for TCP IP 2) Can they reach their home router 3) Can they reach the first hop cell site/tower 4) Can they reach the far side Backbone edge of network. 5) Can they reach Internet. 6) Is DNS resolving. So I suggest adding to the test, test to self. Pinging its own PC IP, to confirm NIC Cable plugged in, or interface turned up. (Could be helpful even if two interfaces on PC, ether and wireless) #3 is more tricky, because each client might have a different tower IP. So this would have to be a custom set IP. It would be left untested, if the ini file had not been configured with a valid test IP. I could see the installion tech adding in this IP at time of install. But this is an essential test. It tells the End user, whether it likely that their outage is unique to their home. If they can get to the tower, but not further, they know there is likely a network wide outage. It also tells the end user to reboot the outdoor equipment. Secondly, I ask us to challenge why we want this tool most. a) To test performance, or b) To locate failure points. These are two very different purposes. I'd suggest that this tool is most useful for option b. I would have the start test button for Speed test be a sdifferent start button than the one that performs all the other uptime tests. So a Speed test isn;t done everytime the end user jsut wants to verify why they can't get to the Internet. I'd like to have a Disclaimer field right under the Speed Test line, that was customizable by the ISP in the INI. For example, I'd say... Speed test is just a basic test, to get a detailed speed test, goto site at www..net. (I'm not saying you can;t make a good speed test, but speed testing can be very complicated. I'd hate to see this valuable tool get delayed, attempting to optimize
[WISPA] WISPA invites you to WISPA Summer 2010 Regional Meeting (Jul 21, 2010 - Jul 22, 2010)
--
Event Summary:
--
Event: WISPA Summer 2010 Regional Meeting
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 8:00 AM span class=pipe-/span Thursday,
July 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM (CT)
Location: bHoliday Inn St. Louis Airport/bbr /4505 Woodson Roadbr /St.
Louis, MISSOURI 63134br /br /
--
Event Details:
--
plt;script type=text/javascriptgt;/p
p var _gaq = _gaq || [];/p
p _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-9743884-2']);/p
p _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);/p
p (function() {/p
p var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript';
ga.async = true;/p
p ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' :
'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';/p
p var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);/p
p })();/p
plt;/scriptgt;/p
pa title=Holiday Inn Reservations
href=http://www.holidayinn.com/hotels/us/en/stlop/hoteldetail;
target=_blank/a /p
p style=text-align: center; img title=Book Hotel Now!
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/brands.content000180image.contentimage.1.2.gif;
alt=Holiday Inn Logo width=138 height=99 //p
p style=text-align: center; a
href=http://ichotelsgroup.com/redirect?path=ratesamp;brandCode=HIamp;GPC=WISamp;hotelCode=STLOPamp;_PMID=99801505;
target=_blankBook Hotel Now using WIS for Room Code/a/p
p style=text-align: center; font color=#FFA200Call In Reservations
314-427-4700/font/p
pPer Member requests, WISPA is proud to hold it's first WISPA Regional
Meeting in St. Louis, Mo on July 21st and 22nd. We are currently planning
three tracks, packed with information on regulatory issues, operations,
marketing and other challenges the WISP industry faces on a day to day
basis./p
pWe invite all WISPs to attend this meeting. Come meet the current WISPA
Board and hopefully many of the new Board members who will be running for next
years Board. There will be a breakfast Board Meeting on the second day, so you
will be able to see the Board in action and participate in the discussion. /p
pWe expect a good participation of vendors with Booth Space and Sponsorship
opportunities. The vendors will also have a chance to speak during the agenda
on different products and services they have to offer. /p
pWe are currently securing Keynote speakers and this page will be amended as
speakers are secured. Our Industry is dynamic and in a current state of flux.
WISPA is involved heavily in the TV Whitespaces, 3.65 GHz rule making, TDWR
Database work, National Broadband Plan and Stimulus Funding. Schedule your
participation for this meeting today, so you can stay up to date with current
WISPA efforts. We will insure that this will be a great event and well worth
your time and money to attend./p
pfont size=3Platinum Sponsors/font/p
pa href=http://www.bluemesh.net; target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bluemesh140x90.jpg;
alt=BlueMesh width=140 height=90 //aa
href=http://www.dishnetwork.com/; target=_blankimg
src=http:///www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dish140x90.jpg; alt=Dish
Network //a/p
pfont size=3Gold Sponsors/font/p
pa href=http://www.surpluswirelessgear.com/; target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/swg140x90.jpg; alt=Surplus Wireless
Gear width=140 height=90 //aa href=http://www.netsapiens.com/;
target=_blankimg
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/netsapiens.png;
alt=Netsapiens width=140 height=90 //aa href=http://www.winncom.com;
target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/winncom_logo_140x90.jpg;
alt=Winncom width=140 height=90 //afont color=#EE6600a
href=http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Wireless+Broadband+Networks/;
target=_blankimg src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/21.png;
alt=Motorola width=140 height=90 //a/font/p
pfont color=#EE6600a href=http://www.exaltcom.com;img
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/Exalt140x90.jpg; alt=Exalt
Communications width=140 height=90 //a/font/p
pfont size=3Silver Sponsors/font/p
pa title=Moonblink Communications href=http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/;
target=_blankimg style=vertical-align: top;
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/moonblink140x90.jpg; alt=Moonblink
Communications //aa href=http://www.ipifony.com; target=_blankimg
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/ipifony140x90.jpg;
alt= width=140 height=90 //a/p
pProposed Schedule/p
p class=MsoNormalstrongspan style=text-decoration: underline;Day
1/span/strong/p
p class=MsoNormalstrongspan style=text-decoration: underline;
table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
tbody
tr
td width=148 valign=top
p class=MsoNormalstrongfont color=#FF99009:00 –
9:15/font/strong/p
/td
td colspan=3 width=724 valign=top
p class=MsoNormalstrongfont color=#FF9900Welcome from
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings about CALEA from the past few weeks. Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to any other customer or routed to the Internet, so I think we'll be able to SPAN all customer traffic and from there manipulate the data streams and hand them off to law enforcement. The only exception to this case might be our Waverider CCU's, which are routing packets between various end-users. I am going to contact them to see what their take is on implementing LI -- we might need to stop using the CCU's as routers. The main questions I have for the forum are ... assuming we can at least make a copy of a given customer's traffic without the customer realizing it (i.e. non-intrusively), how are we going to be able to format the data to be able to hand it off to law enforcement? We obviously want to do this in the most cost-effective way possible (read: open source solution). http://www.opencalea.org/ definitely looks promising, but it is just getting off the ground as far as I can tell. I wonder if there are any other groups out there working on this. As far as compliance standards go, as far as I can tell, the one that most fits us might be ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP data, but I'm still confused about that. When I visit http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html, I see a link for Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS which takes me to https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22665. Is this all the same as ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP? Somehow I don't have the feeling that paying $164.00 for this standard is going to help get me in the right direction We do have a couple savvy Linux guru-types in house that could deploy a good open-source solution and keep it updated, I think. But I don't think we're up to developing such a solution ourselves from scratch. I did find a device made by a company called Solera (http://www.voip-news.com/feature/solera-calea-voip-packet-capture- 031907/) which looks like it could be cost-effective (read: ~$7000.00) for a small ISP (read: ~1,000 customers) like us. Obviously we would prefer open source, but at least it was a relief to see that we might be able to avoid the $40,000 - $100,000 solutions I've been hearing about from TTP's and other (larger) ISPs. Matt Liotta, you mentioned that you have the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved. Would you be willing to share some details about the solution you've been able to come up with? I do see the opportunity that this whole CALEA thing could provide to some ISP's who figure out a way to develop a cost-effective solution and then offer consulting services or **affordable** TTP services to other companies ... I also read with interest the Baller law group's Key Legal and Technical Requirements and Options for CALEA (http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BHLG-CTC_CALEA_Memo.pdf) that Peter Radizeski forwarded to the list. I had not taken seriously the possibility of filing a section 109(b) petition, but if we do due diligence and really do not find an affordable solution to deploy on our network, I think we may have to seriously consider that (for example, the part about asking to be considered compliant as long as we can meet most of LI's requirements, if not all of them). Please excuse the long and rambling post ... I'm just having a hard time finding out how to grab a hold of this CALEA beast. Hi, let me quote from www.askcalea.com On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition. Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites? A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as information services such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered. Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs? A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special deficiency petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:08:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. I'm sorta puzzled by this claim of crisis. I can't think of any...and I mean... ANY provider, who can support simultaneous and sustained 1+Mbit to more than half of thier customer base. Cable can't. The telco's really don't have that much bandwidth to their CO's. The backbone companies haven't got anywhere NEAR enough capacity to manage that. Now, if I could cache and redistribute using some kind of proxy mechanism, I could do it if the great majority of the traffic were streaming data from common sources. But scaling would be... well...quite a challenge. It would require that all my clients would be restricted to only a few sources for all of the streaming data. While I can see Ken's point, I believe he's very much wrong in his analysis of the state of the both the technology and the competition. I know I'm not ready for VOIP AND VOD to half my customers at the same time. But then neither is any of my competition. I guess the question is... If it jumps up on us, who can restructure faster? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote Mark, your info is 3 years old We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs. marlon I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the government is a reliable source of information about what the government wants and demands. www.askcalea.com is direct from their mouths. Yes, it's old, but then the site is still considered live. THE FCC is saying one thing, a different agency is saying another. Concurrently. I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Frankly, I think every broadband ISP should file and say we will never be compliant and just let them TRY to shut down every ISP in the country. It's about time we told THEM where to get off, rather than being lambs to the slaughter. But no. WISPA leads the charge to slaughter it's own industry by begging to be regulated out of existence. Just three years ago, the WISP industry and WISPA was going to show the world just how scrappy, independent and courageous we were. We did alright. We turned into worms and mashed ourselves into the pavement instead. One can only imagine the reaction if some actual competitive threat came along. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?] the FCC find broadband access and broadband telephony to be subject to CALEA. Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!. The cat looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!. We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are NOT telecommunications services or providers. Now, it suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the law didn't apply to us, it doesn't pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for. The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along comes the FCC and says WE have to pay for it. I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most egregious demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for it), in order to ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since they weren't inclined to continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So, instead of defending what was defensible, they sidestepped and tossed the mess in our laps, and we're just sitting here taking it without so much as a word of protest. Gee, we must look like real shmucks to them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES back when they do stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people for objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES! Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every possible way they can think of! Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight would have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on very firm ground I am sure. The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO THE LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just because they WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense. You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it has to debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it. If we, the people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police would just stop us and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new tires, tune it up, repaint their cars, use OUR building for their office, provide them internet for free, the list goes on and on and on. After all, we have to have cops
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:07:51 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. EVen if tomorrow, CALEA vanished, it is true that we need the capabilities of doing this. Thanks for pointing that out. The problem lies in that the CALEA technical discussion revolves around unknown technical requirements / capabilities. We can only discuss it in sort of a theoretical concept. At the moment, my abilities are ... well, they don't exist. Nothing in the software / hardware on my network, AT ANY POINT can be modified to do this. I would have to go to my upstream and ask them to mirror or log or otherwise catch the traffic, since that is the only present single point ot exist where all traffic in / out of my network passes. And that won't be for long, as I'll soon have multiple providers and dynamic routing. I can't even do policy based routing at the moment to force all the traffic from one client to anywhere. However, none of this really matters. We don't know what the demands are technically. The theoretical requirements are that we intercept at the CPE. Who the bloody heck has CPE that can do that? Few WISP's do. The vast majority do not. Further, if CALEA requirements apply to WISP's, then CALEA requirements apply to WISP equipment providers, just like they do to telco equipment providers. Another can of worms, entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. To add to that, I welcome the conversation about not compliance, since that's a very specific and detailed demand, but simply about how to assist LEA's in catching bad guys. That's something a good lot of us will eventually end up doing. I just don't believe it is proper or right for me to be an unpaid lackey who is forced to do whatever they want out of my own pocket. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is [WINDOWS-1252?] embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, CALEA- -unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . [WINDOWS-1252?] (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of [WINDOWS-1252?] which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted [f] or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in [WINDOWS-1252?] communication by wire and radio . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation [WINDOWS-1252?] of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Dawn, respectfully... But, please understand my point. Tomorrow, the FCC COULD reverse it's opinion and we'd be exempt. JUST LIKE THAT, without a single court decision, without a single sentence from Congress, etc. In fact, WE WERE EXEMPT until 2006, when the FCC changed its mind. So, what kind of law applies ... or doesn't... Depending on the whim of unelected beaurocrats? CALEA isn't that vague. It's just misapplied. I maintain that the FCC is in error in it's interpretation of what is a telecommunications provider and we should be shouting it at them at 36dbm and 102 decibels. In fact, EVERY ISP, NSP, etc, organization should be snowing the FCC under in objections. And maybe some legal efforts, too. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote Mark, Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in the blanks. But CALEA wasn't vague. They used as precise of wording as they could in 1994 and there wasn't an iota of doubt as to what they wanted and who they wanted it from. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag decades ago. Time for some stuffing the cat BACK, then. Gee, every day I read some man or woman died serving me in some far off place. And we're afraid to say NO! to the overreaching fat sow in DC? Forget that noise, as my dad used to say when he thought my arguments were weak. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote I've been watching this discussion for a bit. Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark. Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to require every auto in the country to have a GPS and cellular modem in it. So the DOT mandates this, but doesn't provide any funding for it. Instead, they expect the auto owners to pay for the equipment and the cellular company's to provide the service for free. Just how many of you will go for this? Do you think the cellular company's will go for it? The example above is EXACTLY the same as the CALEA requirements being applied to us. Pretty good analogy, except that it would be more like having the cellular providers provide BOTH the equipment and service, but that's just quibbling around the edges. If they want to pay for it, fine. For my network, they can expect to pay about $40K to replace my MESH based AP's for me And, I don't know how much it will cost to fix my automated sign-up system for mobile and hot-spot users, (because it works with the MESH AP's only). I'm not even sure that hot-spots can EVER be made compliant. What about my 30min per day free stuff for tourists to check their e- mail? Right now, I can locate a person to a tower. Not to an individual CPE. And I see no way to do so without wholesale equipment replacement. I'll bet there are others in the same spot. I know that at least 10 to 20% of my customers have wireless AP's in their home. No way can I gaurantee that traffic I intercept is actually from or to the individual in question. I don't think we're being asked to do this, mind you, but it leads to the question of whether LEA should be attempting to bend network operations to their notion of what surveillance is, or should they change what they see as serveillance to how the services work. Again, this whole mess is a result of the FCC applying a PHONE SERVICE INTERCEPT law to a service that is NOT analogous and doesn't work the same way. On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? Let me state up front, that I argued for the formation of WISPA. I still believe in the idea of a trade organization for the industry I am in. I don't believe that was a mistake. WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. Some time ago, I formally cancelled my membership, and made it clear that when I believe that the leadership will make some effort to represent what I consider the interests of their myriad small members, I will again at least financially support WISPA. Does the stated leadership's stand on this reflect the the majority / minority of the member's views? I don't know. I don't really know WHAT the WISPA membership in general thinks. I don't know what the WISP industry in general thinks. Unfortunately, I really don't think that the volunteer leadership has the time or energy or resources to dig deep, engage in informed debate, and make sure that all views and ideas are well heard, and then get some kind of consensus of the views of the industry or membership. That's just the nature of the beast, for a startup organization that's small and driven by volunteers. Thus, WISPA has represented in DC what the views of the individuals are that both can and have gone to DC in our behalf. Being a volunteer driven organization, the only people who can serve are those who have the time, the money, and the drive, to become leadership. That leaves the vast majority of us out - me included. Peter suggested that people run for leadership of WISPA with contrarian views. I'm not really sure that's the solution. With the way it operates now, we'd just end up with a leadership bitterly divided within itself, and still probably not understanding or knowing the real guts of the industry itself, and still not really representting the industry. I do not see leadership of WISPA as being a tool for activism or agendas. For the most part, the WISPA leadership has asked the membership for input on much of what it has done. Sometimes, even important stuff doesn't get more than
Re: [WISPA] CALEA FAQ-rant
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:07:01 +, Ron Wallace wrote To All, Thanks to all that participated. I know you worked hard and used valuable time which could have been spent on your business. However, Am I the only person in WISPA who disapproves of this 'STUFF'. This is the way Saudi Arabia is run, and that's a total police state. I know, I spent three years there. Are we just supposed to just swallow whatever the Bureaucrats 'shovel' our way? Man, this scares the bejesus out of me. ARGGG! Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605- 4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron, there is a truth that the constitution says that with a court order, almost anything can be searched. I don't know that any of us really seriously disagree with that. If there were an absolute privacy, then we'd be unable to catch or prosecute some really bad people. Now let's look at CALEA. CALEA was written to allow simple phone taps in a non-wired world - electronic switching of POTS. Seems reasonable, seeing as how Congress did ante up the money to pay the subjects to make the changes. When we read the FAQ, we find absolute requirements that EVERY cpe or AP you have be changed to become CALEA compliant. How many of you run stuff that's now out of date or no longer produced? How many of you have equipment that physically lacks the capability of being changed to provide the data mirror capability? Again, the FAQ, ALL equipment providers must make their equipment compliant. And what if they don't? A LOT of our stuff comes from offshore or outside our borders. Arbitrary demands we include certain specified functionality including certain code in all equipment.. What if they won't? It becomes illegal to use, that's what. What if they do? We're handing the mechanism used to intercept law enforcement type demands to people outside our country, with no loyalty, obligations, or even assurance of fidelity. Can you say built in back door? And OUR posteriors are on the line, since WE have to GAURANTEE privacy and confidentiality. Even though we produce none of it, wrote none of it, and have no recourse on the people who did. Even worse, we're totally at someone else's mercy to maintain full and bug-free compliance through upgrades, updates, etc. So, if the code won't fit into your Trango's firmware, guess who will be buying new Trango equipment? What if you own stuff that's no longer in production. Do you suppose compliance backfitting will be at a 'nice' price? Just examples of big brother injecting himself into your network, business, pocketbook. And WISPA won't even COMMENT to the regulators that is is TOTALLY WRONG. Instead, the leadership browbeats the membership when they object. It's the law they say. We only lost because nobody would object. Yes, it's all wrong, but the strategy is to isolate all who would object, and beat them down one at a time. One equipment maker at a time, one ISP at a time, one trade association at a time. All our leadership does is play politics, attack and isolate the individuals who object. When it finally results in a bunch of our industry failing, the comment will be that's the price of doing business, by those who remain and persist in the pursuit of market dominance. Frankly, today, I have pneumonia, the flu, and a cold... and that doesn't make me half as sick as how we've been taken down. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] what does this?
Within a few minutes of each other, I got calls from opposite ends of my network complaining about outages. Really odd, I thought, as I was in the middle of checking out some things. The short of it is as follows: Sometime yesterday, not exactly sure what time, two backbone links suddenly began going up and down, 5 sec up, 5 sec down. One is 10 miles long, runs due east west from the east end of town into the mountains. The other is 10 miles south and somewhat west of the other one, and runs north-south, with the north end somewhat west of the south end. The only common factor? Both were on 5805.About 2 months ago, both were down suddenly, and I had to move both from 5745 to 5805, all frequencies in between were so hot I could not establish a link with a rssi of -72. Again, the links end are 10 miles apart at their closest ends and run about 170 degrees angle from each other. Today, 5745 is clear and clean with no apparent issues as I have an AP on it carrying 20 customers over looking the only common area between the two links, 5805 is buried, over a span of 30 miles. The pattern was obvious... about 5 seconds of no data moving, 5 seconds fine, steady pattern going on and on and on. About 50% ping loss, with the 1-ping-per-second showing 5 good, 5 missed, 5 good, 5 missed. What could possibly be that strong that it can take down such widely spread apart links? In both cases, there is considerable elevation change, such that low ends see nothing but dirt and sky (there's NOTHING but mountains and clear sky beyond my higher elevation sites in both cases) beyond their respective other ends, and that the far ends have considerable downtilt and their respective beam patterns do not intersect, but instead, point into dirt. Something has to be so strong that it takes down the links from OUTSIDE of the beam patterns of 26 db (or higher) grids. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] LEMMINGS?
? NO + http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/techinttele/calea/caleajan07.pdf 4. It is Patriotic... o Way wrong, observe the historical definition of patriotism. The label of patriot has historically been applied to groups rebelling. + # Patriots (Founding Fathers of USA, rebelled against England) # Patriots (Dutch group that rebelled against the Orangists in the United Provinces in the 18th century.) # Les Patriotes, those who supported independence for what is now Québec, Canada, during the Lower Canada Rebellion. o I think it would more define Patriotic if we had made efforts in the following areas: + Contacting our subscribers to notify them, and attempt to collect and coordinate their feelings about this. + Operating as a group to notify the FCC that they should review the form 447 filings that have been made, so they could calculate the impact of WISPs forming an alliance to shut down their networks in cyclic outages (disconnect the 'internet' leave your intranetwork traffic flowing, as a peaceful protest of the draconian measures be forced upon us as an industry group. o Dictionary definition: A patriot is someone who feels patriotism, support for their country. 2. COST? 1. Won't waste a minute of your time on the dollars. We all know that for ourselves. If not, contact Neustar for a quote. 2. I am referring to the following. If the real true GOAL of WISPs being mired in CALEA is because two people connected to the same AP MIGHT pass packets that aren't captured by current means, then can some one please tell me... How we can expect an embedded, low power, 'edge' of network device like an AP to have enough CPU to provide our subscribers the service they are accustomed to while mirroring/capturing traffic? 2. Frequency 1. Face it, Spectrum Auctions are completely redonk. 1. With out more 'public outcry' type pressure being applied for the FCC to widen 'for public use', unlicensed spectrum, then the large, fat cat, corporate behemoths will keep our WISP efforts comfortably confined to only very small portion of market, and 'we the people' are worse off because of it. 2. I sincerely hope that I live to see the day when the devices are allowed to be truly freq. portable / agnostic. To see a time when my devices may communicate with each other with custom wave forms simultaneously even if walking in the same frequency. 3. I love what WISPs /CLECs have done, I love what WISPs are about, we are truly participants in our communities whom care. I hope we as WISPs are not about to transform into lemmings and run the herd off a cliff. /RANT Some may know me, but I do appreciate your candor in not revealing it. ;) lol Peace and freedom to all, XXX -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Re[2]: [WISPA] Gas Prices
We got Verizon falling all over themselves giving away DSL here too. That forced us to look at marketing/selling to people in the country though. I'm not price warring with them. We also are firming up our pay if not our equipment service calls. Was letting that slide too much and the infected crap people run is not worth doing it for free. Barry Not trying to steer the subject away too much, but I'm on vacation here in Massachusetts visiting my mom for a week and I keep on hearing the Comcast ads for 6 megs internet with 19.99 per month for the first 6 months, and they say DSL can't do that. So I'm wondering how the heck wisps here are competing against 6 megs at 19.99 per month for the first 6 months? George -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Back to the hurricaine......A time to focus
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:41:10 -0400, Bob Moldashel wrote Hey MacDon't worry. President Bush will be there on Friday and make everything better. He would have been there sooner but he had a fund raiser scheduled for tonight and another one tomorrow. :-) Relax everyone. That was a joke. I'm a stupid Republican too. Don't jump up and down. Let's keep this near topic. And more good news.The govt just released a part of the strategic oil reserve to help with the fuel situation down there. They say the main reason for this was due to the inability to move oil into the refineries. What they failed to mention was that the refineries in the region are still shut down and are not expected to be up to production levels until next week. I bet by then the oil will be flowing again. If nothin more it will mean more gas for me. Sure won't help the poor people of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana much. Amazing. There's plenty of fuel in some parts of the country. Here in the NW, most of our fuel comes from alaska and Montana and Wyoming. And hug your family and tell them you love themBecause many no longer can. Life is too short. Live it like it is your last day. God Bless Good advice. -B- Mac Dearman wrote: There is no one to serve internet to in New Orleans but FEMA and the work crews and I am sure that the Feds have satellite set up. New Orleans has been issued orders for COMPLETE evacuation. They are moving all the folks out of the shelters to higher ground (refugee camps) North of New Orleans City limits. It will be many months before anyone will be allowed back into New Orleans. Water is still pouring into town as we speak due to levee breaches and is expected to have 9' of water downtown before it quits coming across the levee. A soup bowl cant hold but so much soup. I am and have been thinking about those ON higher ground already. Baton Rouge, for instance, has power and everything...but outlying areas southward do not. Let's think about this... Idaho has a population of 1.36 million people. Imagine Idaho, twice, instantly homeless, jobless, without resources. Even if you can return to where your home was...what will you do? But these hundreds of thousands who have nowhere, nobody, nothing... Many of them need to find family, places to go, etc. And this is where we could help. And then, those communities that are getting back together, but need phone, and some help finding stuff. It takes at least 5 support people for every hundred, just so they can eat, drink, etc. And not to minimize what's being done by the Red Cross and countless organizations, government and private, but we're unique, in that we can do what nobody else c an do easily. The HAM radio guys are mobilized in considerable numbers, to try to help people find thier families and whatnot, by patching in phone service from places its working. We ARE behind the curve on this... but I will suggest now, that WISPA form a disaster strike team. In future years, I'll donate and volunteer for it... that goes and provides information services to ANYWHERE under any conditions, and that we cultivate a relationship with FEMA and the state governments. Every WISP I know is a can do type of person. We're bucking the trends, carving out uniquely to do what others can't. We have something incredibly valuable to offer, and we should. I have ot tell you that the launch of my business was delayed 2 years, partly because of issues relating to my education and so on, but also because me and my wife donated so much of our time and money to helping others. Some years we have given in money and time (lost income) more than it took to get my business off the ground. What I can offer to help others is changing...and I feel an obligation - a God-given one... to do what I can. I'm not a firefigher, soldier, pilot, EMT, cop... etc... But what I can do... I would like to do. Im sure many of you out there feel the same. But we should only do...if, and when ,and what, is needed. Let those who know say what's needed, but we can't be asked, if what we can do isn't even known about. Mark -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Canopy Site, off-power-grid
I'll be happy to design it for ya, Rick. I'll give you a call on Monday. On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:01:17 -0500, Rick Smith wrote Need to install a short tower as a relay on a mountaintop, no power within 3/4 mile. Anyone done battery / generator sites with one Canopy AP, one Canopy SM and a router, like Mikrotik in between ? This is in NJ, not too good an environment for solar I imagine, although we'll be on a real high hill top (1250' elev) for this area... R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
