Re: [WISPA] IP Tracking

2019-06-13 Thread Anthony Bartolini via Wireless
David,


Are you looking for a NMS-like tool as is SolarWinds? Or are you just wanting a 
way to keep track of your IP space?


Thanks,


-Anthony Bartolini-

 Network/RF Engineer


[cid:70d2e46c-0262-43e5-ad77-a38b2dae7826]

Sureline Broadband

Phone: (541) 699-0030

Direct: (541) 325-4513

www.SurelineBroadband.com


From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org  on behalf of 
David Funderburk via Wireless 
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:14:39 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] IP Tracking


We are trying to better organize our IP address tracking. What affordable 
software do you recommend?  Solarwinds is not in our budget yet.



Regards,

David Funderburk
GlobalVision
864-569-0703

For Technical Support, please email 
gv-supp...@globalvision.net<mailto:gv-supp...@globalvision.net>.



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project<http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be clean.
Confidentiality Notice: This message and all attachments are subject to the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C. This email may contain 
information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. Do Not Foward, Copy, or Print without the sole 
written consent of Sureline Broadband, LLC. If you are not the addressee or you 
have received this email in error, please delete this email, and contact us 
immediately at complia...@surelinebroadband.com. Confidentiality Notice: This 
message and all attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C. DO NOT FORWARD, COPY, or PRINT without the Sole 
Written Consent of Sureline Broadband, LLC. This email may contain information 
that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under 
applicable law. If you are not the addressee or you have received this email in 
error, please forward immediately to: complia...@surelinebroadband.com and then 
delete this email.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Email Providers?

2018-08-09 Thread Anthony Bartolini
Hi All!


New around here, but not to the ISP/WISP industry.


As far as E-mail is concerned, Rackspace is a great option as well. I believe 
it's $5.00/Month per domain.


-Anthony Bartolini-

 Network/RF Engineer


[cid:14b129df-15ef-4d1e-acc8-13d0ec57f4ca]

Sureline Broadband

Phone: (541) 699-0030

Direct: (541) 325-4513

www.SurelineBroadband.com


From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org  on behalf of 
ORI.NET - Scott LePere 
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 8:17:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Providers?

Ori.net can host your email - includes spam and virus filtering.

Email me if interested.

Scott


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org  On Behalf Of 
d...@trcemail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Providers?

Look at Sherweb. We use their cloud-based Exchange Server. Simple to transfer 
from our servers (mailenable) to exchange, they will even do it for you for 
free. Has web-only, web/Outlook or both.

-Dan

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:04 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: [WISPA] Email Providers?

Hi Folks,

We're looking at possibly migrating our customer mail from local servers to a 
cloud provider (full service, not a build-our-own at AWS/google/azure/etc 
hopefully), though the discussion is still very much at the "talking about it" 
stage.  Assuming that anyone here uses a cloud provider for email, does anyone 
on the list want to share who they are using and what their migration 
experience was like?  Pricing would also be great, assuming no NDA.

Thanks!
Tim Densmore

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Confidentiality and Sensitive Information Notice: This message and all 
attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 
U.S.C. and the sole property of Sureline Broadband. This email may contain 
information that is privileged, sensitive, confidential, or otherwise exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law, and may not be copied, printed, or 
forwarded without the express and sole permission of Sureline Broadband. If you 
are not the addressee or you have received this email in error, please delete 
this email, and contact us immediately at bill...@surelinebroadband.com.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.

2011-03-08 Thread Anthony Will
Hello,

Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb.  Anyone have a server sitting on enough
bandwidth to spare I could test against.

Anthony Will



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] MT bandwidth test - Need a location to test to.

2011-03-08 Thread Anthony Will
Hi Chuck,
The injection point is sitting in the middle of a field that is not the
easiest thing to access.  I don't have a PC sitting at our injection point
that has a web browser available to it.  I do have a MT edge router though.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:

 Multiple speedtest.net servers are capable of 75+...last I did one from
 ours it read 140Mbps over one connection.
 Regards,

 Chuck


 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Anthony Will will.anth...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello,

 Just upgraded our main pipe to 75mb.  Anyone have a server sitting on
 enough bandwidth to spare I could test against.

 Anthony Will




 
 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/






 
 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/




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] What if you can't get a T3?

2010-07-20 Thread Anthony
Very good experience with them here.  Best pricing available out in the 
boondocks of MN.  They own the tower where the fiber pop is, so or PtP 
link on that side is no rent.
They do average a short outage every 6 weeks or so for upgrades and 
such, but the last notice I got was for BGP tables so looks like they 
finally are installing a ring at this location. 
My only grip with them is their peering with XO and XO's router has a 
tendency to start flapping. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp

Jon Auer wrote:
 We used Charter fiber for PTP and Internet Access for a few years, a
 few years ago.
 It was OK. Way more outages than the SBC DS3 that we had at the time.
 (a few hours of planned or unplanned downtime in the middle of the
 night every month)
 Pricing was far better than SBC.
 We dropped them once we built out PTP links to a datacenter with less
 expensive bandwidth.

 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com 
 wrote:
   
 After about a year of getting the same response from ATT after multiple
 order requests at different locations across our network, the guy in
 charge of building out fiber for the region called and said what in the
 world are you guys doing?!?  He ended up giving us the location of a
 few fiber terminals in the area.  We found the ones closest to our
 network, made an agreement with a tenant nearby, and did a wireless PtP
 to connect it to our network.

 Moral of the story, we were shooting in the dark until we had an in in
 the right department at ATT.

 On a related note, does anyone have an experience with Charter's fiber
 services?


 --
 Kristian Hoffmann
 System Administrator
 kh...@fire2wire.com
 http://www.fire2wire.com

 Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE


 On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 22:33 -0500, Roger Howard wrote:
 
 Quick alert to those who are not aware... back when I was running my
 business on T1 lines, I just assumed that when I was ready, I could
 order a T3 and upgrade my bandwidth. Not so.

 Just because you can get a T1 doesn't mean you can get a T3 without
 huge buildout costs. I was quoted $400,000 dollars to upgrade to a T3.
 I managed to get around it because otherwise ATT would have had to
 install a high count copper line down my road to be able to keep
 offering POTS service here, so I got lucky, and had a free install.
 But you may not be that fortunate.

 I just thought if I posted this, it might give some people a heads up
 to start planning for more bandwidth when you're coming close to
 needing t3 type capacity.

 Thanks,
 Roger


 
 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/

   

 
 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/

 


 
 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/



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] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers

2010-05-16 Thread Anthony
FYI, I also use everyone.net and we are not experiencing this issue.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Mark Nash wrote:
 These problems happen throughout the day, not just during their maintenance 
 window.  They have made us give them extensive information about the problem 
 we and our customers have been having.  I hope to have a resolution soon, or 
 we will be switching 1000+ users to another provider.  Anyone who's done 
 that knows the undertaking it will be, but we will do it nevertheless. 
 Right now our customers, not knowing any better, perceive this to be a 
 problem with our INTERNET connections.  That's bad.

 Mark Nash
 UnwiredWest
 1702 W. 2nd Ave
 Suite A
 Eugene, OR 97402
 541-998-
 541-998-5599 fax
 http://www.unwiredwest.com
 - Original Message - 
 From: Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:40 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers


   
 I seem to remember that they sent out an email saying that they were
 going to have maintenance.

 Regards,
 Chuck Hogg
 Shelby Broadband
 502-722-9292
 ch...@shelbybb.com
 http://www.shelbybb.com


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers

 We have been having alot of problems sending email through
 Everyone.Net's servers.  Lots of server rejections, delivery resource
 unavailable type messages.

 Anyone going through the same problems?

 Here's a message sent by our tech to their tech support this morning.
 This message outlines our problems with them.

 - Original Message - 
 From: Justin Mann
 To: Everyone.net Technical Support ; Unwired West
 Cc: Mark Nash
 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:09 AM
 Subject: Continued issues with sending email with Everyone.net servers


 Hello,

 We are getting more Delivery Resource Unavailable errors from the
 Everyone.net SMTP servers today. This is on both shared-svc1 and
 shared-svc2. We would like help on why this is happening, and why we
 have issues sending email intermittently.

 I know for a fact this is an issue with the everyone.net servers;  the
 error message is being returned from the servers themselves, after an
 SMTP session has been established. See the attached image; that is the
 error message coming from Everyone.net's servers.

 We didn't have many issues from this in April, but it was a nightmare
 earlier in the year. When email does not work, it makes it very
 difficult to do business. I am sure you understand our frustrations. So
 far, all suggestions given to us from Everyone.net have not worked. We
 have exhausted all potential options on our ends for reasons that we
 could be causing the errors. We have used different workstations,
 different operating systems, different mail clients, different ISPs,
 different email domains. We have even used different SMTP servers per
 your suggestion.

 When we use third-party SMTP servers we do not have this problem, ever.
 However, that is not a long-term solution. Please advise. Also, please
 look at the attached image. This is the type of error message we get,
 frequently, with both shared-svc1 and now shared-svc2.






 
 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/

 



 
 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/
   



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] Licensed PTMP Gear Recommendations?

2010-05-08 Thread Anthony
Everything you said is correct, but how is that different the any of the 
non-licensed bands now?  The main benefit is if someone else deploys 
they have to come to the table and work out an agreement so that 
everyone can live in the space.  Now if to many start deploying 
obviously that is going to be troublesome.  But again I ask how is that 
any different then non-licensed except you will be able to find the 
other party much easier due to the fcc database.  The vast majority of 
the equipment being deployed at this time is wimax, this standard has 
sync that will allow many more players / towers to reuse the spectrum.  
The couple solutions out there that are not wimax are generally ptp or a 
wifi hack.  Well, most wifi gear is going to be cdma and you generally 
will cause them more issues then they give you with lack of a sync 
solution.  Again not really any different then non licensed.  Well... 
other then you don't have to contend with baby monitors, wifi routers, 
etc etc

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp

Scott Carullo wrote:
 I'm not sure about 3.65 for a few reasons...  I've heard conflicting info so 
 maybe some feedback on my worries would help.

 I'd have to get special permission here in FL because we are in a 
 grandfathered zone.  No problem though, we have already done the necessary 
 homework and contacted the right people.

 I was told by someone I trust that deploying non-exclusive licensed 3.65 gear 
 would never be appealing to them since there are only one or two channels 
 that one more WISP fires up some gear (legally or not) and it could take me 
 out and there would not be much I can do due to the channel restrictions. 
 Seems like a valid point, do you all not worry about this?  Having a customer 
 base running on a freq you can't change nor protect seems like a disaster in 
 the making.

 I think the first guys who deploy would be fine but it would be really bad if 
 the next guy took you out of commission and there was nothing you could do.  
 Any of this valid?

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102

 

 From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
 Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 9:52 PM
 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed PTMP Gear Recommendations?

 What about 3.65?  Would that do?

 On 5/8/10, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote:
   
 I am looking for gear to place on one tower that is congested with
 non-licensed gear already.  Does anyone have any suggestions on some gear
 that I can use for this? Looking for maybe 3 or 4 APs on this site for 360
 coverage.  They cannot be placed right next to one another as the top 4
 corners of the building are not connected.  They will be located hundreds
 of feet apart.

 Thanks

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102




 
 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/

 

   



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/


[WISPA] Who needs a Network Engineer ?

2009-10-05 Thread Anthony Mattke
A few of you may remember me, as I used to frequent these halls quite  
often. If you don't, I am the former Senior Network Engineer /  
Architect for Cyberlink International / AAA Wireless here in Indiana,  
current owner of http://bgpguru.com/ and just in general a networking  
geek. But I digress.

I am currently actively looking for another full time Network  
Engineering position, if you are in need of such services please  
contact me off list and I can send you my résumé and any information  
you wish.

I'll keep this short, thank you for your time,

-Tony

-- 
Anthony R. Mattke
t...@mattke.net








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] 3.65 ptp

2009-03-08 Thread Anthony Will
I think the main confusion here is people are mixing up the Part 15 
rules and the part 90 rules.  Part 15 the whole system has to be type 
certified.  In Part 90 the transmitter has to be certified along with 
other regulations.
Part 90 is a different ball game people, it is licensed and WILL be 
enforced.  Find the rules, read the rules and talk to a lawyer in the 
industry if you have any confusion.  Your business maybe at stake if you 
mess up.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp

e...@wisp-router.com wrote:
 That is my understanding as well from talking with a certification lab. Lower 
 and equal gain antennas of same type as certified are allowed to be 
 substituted by the manufacturer. 

 /Eje
 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: lakel...@gbcx.net

 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:52:36 
 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp


 As per the FCC only the anufacturer can make the determination which antenna 
 is similar in specifications. Otherwise it needs FCC certification as a 
 system.

 That was from the horses mouth about 18 months ago

 Bob
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

 -Original Message-
 From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com

 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:47:42 
 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp


 Who has the final word on this?  I've been told by testing laboratories 
 that do testing for the FCC that this is not the case...  They said if the 
 radio card (5Ghz when I asked but for this discussion it doesn't matter) 
 had been approved with an antenna then you could use the same or less db 
 like antenna and you were good to go - assuming the card manufacturer (like 
 ubiquity) had had appropriate testing completed and filed with FCC.

 It sure is difficult for any of us to make heads or tales out of what can 
 or can't be done because everyone has a different opinion - even the people 
 at the top of the food chain I guess.

 Who's right?  And how am I supposed to know? 

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102

  Original Message 
   
 From: Harold Bledsoe hbled...@deliberant.net
 Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp

 I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90
 licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected.
 Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with
 Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators.  This is covered with
 a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically.

 So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is
 technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it
 should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part
 15 requirements for unintentional radiators.  In this case, a
 Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location.

 This is why the label is important.  This kind of system built from
 modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model
 number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about
 unintentional interference.  This information tells anyone including the
 FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this
 example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case).
 If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default.  Then if
 there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module
 maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed
 properly).  Finally if there are problems with the unintentional
 emissions, it is the system assembler's problem.

 I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band.  So why does Part 15
 even matter?  Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the
 rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the
 spectrum.  :-)

 -Hal

 -Original Message-
 From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
 Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT

 
 My system is fully licensed. 
   
 How did you get your combination of XR3
 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna
 certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you
 just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification
 process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over
 the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David
 SmithMVN.net

 
 
 
   
 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/

 
 
 
   
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to knowwhatyouthink.

2009-02-23 Thread Anthony Will
So from the sound of this I should be looking at LTE as my next 
technology solution?  Keeping in mind the LTE still is not here?  Also 
keeping in mind that it will likely never be developed in an unlicensed 
spectrum solution except for maybe TV White spaces since the current 
networks that are deploying expect to use 700mhz as their solution.  
What does WiMAX even bring to the table then?  The only spectrum to 
reliably deploy it in is 25mhz of 3650 spectrum since it is not 
interference tolerant.  That seems like a large investment for such a 
small amount of spectrum especially since there are more cost effective 
products out today that are as good or better than WiMAX on the table, 
for many more bands of spectrum. 
I guess my real question is why WiMAX?

PS I really would like to deploy WiMAX and expect to, but I am looking 
exclusively at .e since it is the only standard still being actively 
worked on that I am aware of. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

John Rock wrote:
 Well said Patrick...
 I would like to add - as a whole the industry uses the word mobility all
 the time and has used that pretense of mobile broadband coverage anywhere
 you go as a staple to the word WiMAX. The truth is WiMAX from about any of
 the WiMAX manufacturers has made great improvements in QoS and receive
 sensitivities with the use of smarter antenna technology but still fall
 short in the realm of seamless mobility most of us have grown to expect with
 our cell phones/hand held devices. That is 802.16d
 802.16e offers the promise of mobility in a seamless sense, meaning
 roaming from tower to tower or sector to sector without any noticeable drop
 in service. Wow I wish my cell phone never dropped a call. That may sound
 great but like Patrick said the carrier groups that can maybe afford the
 costs of the huge build out required to have that type of coverage have
 their ties to LTE technology or are tied up with the tough economic times as
 we all are.

 Now let's look at the present technology of 802.16d and Aperto as this
 thread entails. I can drive from one town to another and get associated and
 pass data(12Mbx8Mb). Since I drove with a CPE in my car and mobile antenna
 on my roof that makes me mobile on that network right. So I may have dropped
 a few packets as I roamed from site to site but as long as I can get IP back
 up everything is good. Aperto has a very reliable cost effective solution
 today for 3.65GHz and like any manufacture it has the functionality of WiMAX
 which helps a ton with service profiling for your customers. If people are
 not using some sort of 802.16(WiMAX) product they are falling behind in the
 exciting future of the Wireless Marketplace.

 Now a WiMAX rant, not sure if the WiMAX Forums ears are open but, I am
 disappointed that I do not have a CPE(802.16d) that can link to anyone's
 Base Stations. Sure with the onset of 802.16e that is supposed to work but
 the lack of earlier interoperability that the WiMAX forum promised from the
 onset has been disappointing to me. If we had interoperable systems like the
 essence of WiFi with the current WiMAX systems the marketplace may have been
 quicker to embrace the technology and great strides could have been made for
 network roaming already. Roaming agreements could already be in place if
 interoperability was the true focus from the beginning. End WiMAX rant


 John Rock
 Director of Operations - Senior Engineer
 Wireless Connections
 166 Milan Ave., Norwalk, Oh. 44857 
 ACCessing the Future Today!!
 ofc. 419.660.6100
 cell 419-706-7356
 fax  419-668-4077
 http://www.wirelessconnections.net
 This transmission and any files attached to it, may contain confidential
 and/or privileged information and intended only for the named recipient. If
 you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
 disclosure, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination, disclosure, copying
 or any use of the information or files contained is strictly prohibited. If
 you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
 reply transmission and delete this electronic mail.

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:00 PM
 To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anybody use Aperto for 3.65GHz? I'd like to
 knowwhatyouthink.

 It's a fair question and it bugs me too. Fact is, I was a more than a
 bit blind and thought I was more objective than I really was. Also,
 since then the economy and other conditions has conspired to kick e in
 the teeth a bit. I still believe it is great technology for nomadic and
 perhaps mobile, but it is damned near impossible to fight the LTE
 interests AND the current economy that is so weak no big guys are
 spending big CAPEX, giving LTE all the time it needs to catch
 technically (and it already dominates politically). That has me moving

Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ

2009-02-02 Thread Anthony Will
It is also seems to be citing that way over used and mostly irrelevant 
OECD statistics.  
http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/MeetingAgendasandMinutes/MeetingAgendasandMinutes54.asp
Had a presentation and there are links to a power point and very 
extensive study on the OECD numbers by Scott Wallsten a Berkly grad 
working with http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/ .  In the end when all 
counties have 100% penetration due to household size the US will be 
ranted around 18th in the world. 
But it just sells papers to have the US look bad I guess. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 I'd like to ponit out that the article leaves out some information, and it 
 leaves you with a false impression because of it.  It made note of the 
 price of broadband being cheaper in Japan and other places.   That's true, 
 but much of the infrastructure was funded by tax dollars, instead of the 
 customers of the ISP's.

 I believe if this were properly acounted for, internet would be cheapest in 
 the US, and more everywhere else.   It's not the price, it's the COST that 
 matters, and cost must include the publicly financed portions of the 
 equation.   Everyone pays for that, not everyone uses it, and that cost is 
 rarely factored in these articles.   That leaves a false impression of it 
 being cheap, which it is not and has not ever been.




 
 insert witty tagline here

 - Original Message - 
 From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:38 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ


   
 Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere
 Why the U.S. lags in Internet speed.

*
  By L. GORDON CROVITZ


 In Japan, wireless technology works so well that teenagers draft novels on
 their cellphones. People in Hong Kong take it for granted that they can
 check their BlackBerrys from underground in the city's subway cars. Even 
 in
 France, consumers have more choices for broadband service than in the U.S.

 The Internet may have been developed in the U.S., but the country now 
 ranks
 15th in the world for broadband penetration. For those who do have access 
 to
 broadband, the average speed is a crawl, moving bits at a speed roughly
 one-tenth that of top-ranked Japan. This means a movie that can be
 downloaded in a couple of seconds in Japan takes half an hour in the U.S.
 The BMW 7 series comes equipped with Internet access in Germany, but not 
 in
 the U.S.
 The Opinion Journal Widget

 Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important 
 editorials
 and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

 So those of us otherwise wary of how wisely the stimulus package will be
 spent were happy to suspend disbelief when Congress invited ideas on how 
 to
 upgrade broadband. Maybe there are shovel-ready programs to bring 
 broadband
 to communities that private providers have not yet reached, and to upgrade
 the speed of accessing the Web. These goals sound like the digital-era
 version of Eisenhower's interstate highway projects, this time bringing
 Americans as consumers and businesspeople closer together on a faster
 information highway.

 But broadband, once thought to be in line for $100 billion as part of the
 stimulus legislation, ended up a low priority, set to get well under $10
 billion in the package of over $800 billion. This is a reminder that even
 with a new president whose platform focused on technology, and even with 
 the
 fully open spigot of a stimulus bill, technology gets built by private
 capital and initiative and not by government.

 The relatively small appropriation is not for want of trying. A partial 
 list
 of the lobbying groups involved in the process is a reminder of how
 Washington's return to industrial policy requires lobbying by all: the
 Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications Industry
 Association, National Cable  Telecommunications Association,
 Fiber-to-the-Home Council, National Association of Telecommunications
 Officers and Advisors, National Telecommunications Cooperative 
 Association,
 Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance and Organization for
 the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies.

 The result was a relatively paltry $6 billion for broadband in the House
 bill and $9 billion in the Senate, with each bill micromanaging the 
 spending
 differently. The bills include different standards, speeds and other
 requirements for providers that would use the public funds. This may 
 balance
 competing interests among cable, telecom and local phone companies, but it
 doesn't address the underlying problems of too few providers delivering 
 too
 few options to consumers.

 Techies may be surprised by how these funds would be dispersed. The House
 would give the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service control
 over half the grants and the Commerce

[WISPA] Billing and process management system

2008-12-03 Thread Anthony Will
Hello
I need a new billing / CRM solution.  What are all of you using at this 
time and is it going to scale with you? 
I dont mind if it is not all under one program.  If I have to pay 
someone to customize something I don't care I just need something that 
works.  WILL PAY FOR IT. 
Some things it has to have:
A system that integrates with a bandwidth management and auto shutdown 
for delinquent accounts.
Can process a customer form lead to install and handle trouble tickets 
afterward including installer scheduling.
Can actually accurately and consistently send a bill by email to a 
customer... - major importance.
Credit Card processing.
Decent and totally customizable report generating system.
Customer portal.

Things that would be a bonus
Inventory management
Network monitoring


I apologize for the cross post,
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp
http://www.broadband-mn.com/





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] heavy usage customers

2008-11-04 Thread Anthony Will
With Canopy, and a correctly configured polling AP there is no 
competition for time slices unless the AP is overloaded.  This is how 
the latency is consistent.  Canopy has what is called control slots.  
This is a predetermined time that the SM is allowed to ask for 
resources.  Increasing control slots can decrease overall bandwidth 
available by using up an additional time slice but allows for the 
latency to be consistent no matter the load.  Basically the latency is 
built into the polling system.  That is why a Trango, wifi and other 
solutions have a starting latency of 4ms vs Canopy at 8ms.  The issues 
is the busier the Trango, wifi etc. get the higher the latency gets as 
the SM / CPE are asking for the AP's attention over top each other. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:
 Guaranteeing latency

 One of the things we learned is that the ISP can't measure the customer's 
 experience of latency accurately. And if the can;t measure it, they cant 
 guarantee it.
 When pings initiate from the AP side, they always send without delay.
 When pings initiate from the SU side, they can be delayed from the polling 
 or competing for their timeslice to transmit.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers


   
 Hi,

 We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address.
 We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management).

 When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to
 connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was color code.
 This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change
 the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and
 ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the
 installer doing anything in the field.

 And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the
 AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160
 people to find them by MAC address?

 Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total
 throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps
 (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz
 channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload
 or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific
 percentage of up/down.

 And how do you guarantee 7ms latency? What happens if a customer gets
 8ms? And how do they test that measurement? And what happens when a
 customer completely clobbers an AP and 160 customers are getting 20ms
 latency? Or you have interference from a new provider and all those
 people get 100ms latency?

 Travis
 Microserv


 Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
 
 All of the complaints are easily overcome with the proper management 
 software, DHCP reservations etc.  You can easily force the SM to connect 
 to the exact AP you want a couple different ways.  And there are several 
 non motorola software packages that do this kind of stuff.  We have 5000 
 subs on it and we don't break a sweat in managing any of this.

 We put 128-160 customers per AP and they all still get 10.2 Mbps burst. 
 Slower radio?  That seems pretty fast to me.
 And we guarantee latency to 7 mS.  Hmmm, that is pretty hard to do with 
 anyone else.
   - Original Message - 
   From: Travis Johnson
   To: WISPA General List
   Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:39 PM
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers


   We've tried Canopy... twice in fact... once about 3 years ago, and once 
 about a month ago. We just can't make it fit into our network management 
 (IP database, Call tracking, customer management, etc.) system very 
 well... having customer radios that change their LUID and IP address 
 every time they register, having to set the bandwidth on each SM instead 
 of the AP, having no security or ways to control which AP a customer 
 connects to without having to buy their software, etc.

   All that, plus paying MORE for a slower radio than what we are using 
 just didn't make sense. I can put up an AP (2.4ghz, 5.3ghz, 5.4ghz, or 
 5.8ghz) for less than
   $400 that will support 50 customers, using only 10mhz wide channels... 
 and each CPE is less than $175 complete (including PoE, antenna).

   Canopy seems to work well for many people... but I've never been one to 
 follow the norm. And I get to put $50 in my pocket on every install, 
 and $1,000 for every AP we put up. ;)

   Travis
   Microserv

   Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
 Well that is a testimony to your quality of service for sure.
 Now, if you were using Canopy your customers would be even happier!

 - Original Message - 
 From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, November 02

Re: [WISPA] wierd ap issue - ap thinks default plug is in

2008-10-19 Thread Anthony Will
We have seen this when a spider makes it's home in the enclosure and 
it's webbing shorts the default wiring.
If rebooting does not resolve you can expect a climb on this one.  
Before climbing physically disconnect the power to reboot the unit just 
to be sure. 
Your customers are not working?  This would lead me to believe there are 
greater issues in play here.  The default plug should only reset the 
password and IP address to the system default.  It should not have 
changed color code or disabled the units ability to pass traffic.  I 
could be wrong on that as I have never defaulted an AP before. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Wisp wrote:
 Latest firmware, no sync cable, we sync over power
 Already replaced it but I will try reflashing firmware to see if that  
 fixes it

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Eric Muehleisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   
 I've seen this happen in the past. Do you have a sync cable plugged  
 into
 the sync port? Have you tried upgrading firmware?

 -Eric

 WISP wrote:
 
 I had to reboot one of my towers tonight and when the access point  
 came back with Default plug overrides configured parameters
 Since this P10 AP has been up for 7 months, and rebooted 20 times  
 or so and no tower climbs, I am fairly certain that it doesn't have  
 a default plug in it.

 Has anyone ever seen this and if so, is there any fix.
 My awesome motorola support guy told me after my description of it  
 says the default plug is in was to replace the unit.  Is there any  
 way to have the ap ignore the default plug temporarily so that I  
 can have it working until I can get up the tower.

 thanks,
 Cliff


 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 
 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/


   

 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 
 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/
 


 
 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/

   



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] NOGO's

2008-10-13 Thread Anthony Will
10% nogo that gets databased and mapped for future wireless site 
planning  and marketing efforts.
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com/

Travis Johnson wrote:
 Along a different line... What is everyone's percentage on NOGO's 
 (that's what we call people we try to install and can't get a good 
 enough signal)? Ours was quite a bit higher than I thought when I looked 
 a few days ago... Out of 1,500+ completed installs during the last 12 
 months, we had 208 people we couldn't install successfully. If we only 
 had more time to find more tower locations... :(

 Travis
 Microserv

 Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
   
 We always assume we will get a signal.  We are rarely wrong.
   - Original Message - 
   From: Travis Johnson 
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List 
   Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:07 PM
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik 
 disconnectissueOct7th, 2008


   So there are people that don't roll a truck because some software says you 
 may not be able to get a connection? That seems like a pretty poor idea to 
 me... we have clients that we had to try 3 or 4 different towers with 2 or 3 
 different frequencies before we get a good signal. This tool may have 
 disqualified that customer, yet we got them installed.

   Plus, how do you know if you want to make their location your next 
 repeater to service that area if you just tell them no over the phone? ;)

   Travis
   Microserv

   Brian Webster wrote: 
 On the topic of knowing if the lead was qualified and you could offer
 service to that lead location (start shameless plug), I know of a company
 that can provide you with an inexpensive tool to do a lookup by address and
 give the answer while still on the phone.. As some of the folks on this
 list who already use it for their opinion of how well it works and increases
 productivity and decrease truck rolls to bad installs.



 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:46 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik
 disconnectissueOct7th, 2008


 Great post Tom!
 As I mentioned earlier, we used to give $20. A study by my marketing
 person showed 90% of our new installs were referrals. The interesting
 part was when asked, the referrer said they would've provided the
 referral whether or not the $20 was offered.
 -RickG

 On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
   1. Anyone have any idea what percentage of customers provide referrals,
 with
   a program like free month for each referral?

 2. Has anyone asked their customers that have not provided referrals, what
 would be adequate incentive for them to be willing to?

 3. How well do these programs work for residential versus business?

 I'm just asking because... Some of our customers have said that the did
 not
   refer because
 a)  its against their corporate policy to give referrals.
 b) afraid their service would slow down because, there would be less
 capacity available to themselves afterwords.
 c) they did not want to be held accountable for their implied indorsement,
 if service for the new referred to company did not work out well.
 d) the compensation amounts were not significant enough for them to extend
 the effort, or track it..
 e) There job was not to be our salesman, that was our job.
 f) They already refer, and they'd already do that regardless of getting
 any
   payment compensation, so compensation unnecessary. They'd rather us put
 that
   money into maintaining/upgrading our network.
 g) It was unclear whether the appropriate person would get compensation.
 For
   example, if a employee made the referral, they personally would have very
 little benefit for their employer to save and get a month free.

 What I'm most interested in is What would encourage a higher number of
 customers to start referring qualified leads.

 One potential negative I predicted was that referrals would come in as
 unqualified leads. Previously leads came in for areas that we could not
 serve.
 I made that mistake advertising residential in the yelloe pages. So much
 of
   my time was wasted on leads that would never be feasible to close.
 Just doing the Google map pre-surveys would kill half the day, and could
 burry productivity for a small staffed company. Leads aren;t good, unless
 there is a high chance that the lead will materialize. So this brings me
 back to How will the promotion incourage the customer to bring in
 qualified leads? How will the customer understand who would be qualified?
 Thats why I like stipulatons such as We pay you X, if you refer a
 customer in your building or in your neighborhood, or within 1/2 mile
 of your address. Etc Etc.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc

Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...

2008-10-02 Thread Anthony Will
Try pinging the NS2's with 512k or larger packets and see if they 
associate at a higher level.  It might be showing that when there is not 
communication with any wi-fi device it operates in 1mb mode for basic 
association communication. 
If it changes to what you would expect then I would not be to worried 
about it.  If it stays then be afraid... be very afraid or at least make 
sure you have the newest firmware on them and see if that helps.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Blair Davis wrote:
 I am starting to wounder about this issue myself

 Sunday, I replaced an old,(6 years in service!), Hermes I based AP, 
 (base mounted radio, top mounted 1W amp, 150ft LMR-400) with a top 
 mounted RB532A 5.8GHz backhaul and 2.4GHz AP.

 The radio card for the AP is an XR2 into a 9db Comet omni.  8ft of 
 LMR-400.  Set in B/G mode.  Preamble set to both.  CH9.  All other 
 settings, except ESSID are default.

 Connected to this AP was quite a mixture of clients, including:

 Tranzeo CPE-80, CPE-90, CPE-200, CPE-CPQ
 Lucent Hermes I client
 Senao CB3, EOC-2260
 Ubquity NS2

 Notes on the change.

 Sig strength reported by the mt range from -51 to -92
 Thruput on the AP tripled. tests to my laptop while standing at the 
 base exceeded 7Mb/sec which saturated my fiber.  tests before the 
 change could not exceed 2Mb/sec.
 The Tranzeo cpe-80 would not stay connected.  it would connect and 
 disconnect on a 5 sec cycle.  replaced it with an eoc-2260
 The B clients, all 6 of them, have stayed connected since power up.
 The NS2's, all 5 of them, seem to disconnect/reconnect in a block once 
 or so a day.
 some of the remaining G clients, 4 of them, seem to 
 disconnect/reconnect  in a block in 8-9 hours
 the remaining G clients, 4 of them, are all over the place.  from 18 
 hours to 1 hour.  I would not read too much into this however, as some 
 of my users power their radios down when not in use.
 The NS2's are all reported with anything  from 1Mbps to 54Mbps as the 
 tx rate but are always reported with 1mbps as the rx rate
 The NS2's are all reported with a radio name.  Nothing else shows a 
 radio name.

 The things I wounder about are the radio names not being reported, and 
 the NS2's showing a 1Mbps rx rate all the time.

 Hope some find this useful, and any comments would be appreciated.

 Blair


 Travis Johnson wrote:
 This is NOT just a MT/Tranzeo issue. If you search the forums, people 
 were talking about this issue over 6 months ago with various clients. 
 We are running 100% MT (AP and clients) and we see the issue across 
 ALL of our AP's.

 Travis
 Microserv

 D. Ryan Spott wrote:
 Steve and Eje,

 There is a bit of a forum thread here describing the issue:

 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=24971

 Tranzeo and Mtik are working on it.


 On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:

   
 So let me get this right. If you have Tranzeo CPE's you only use  
 StarOS.
 MT does not work.  Does Mikrotik even acknowledge that this is a issue
 and do they have plans to fix it.

 Part of the issue is I could not make Cisco VPN's work with StarOS  
 V3 AP
 and a Tranzeo CPE.  Had to change to a StarOS CPE.  Now I changed to  
 the
 MT AP and the StarOS CPE didn't work right. So I changed the CPE  
 back to
 a Tranzeo, VPN's work great now but the Tower reboots.  ARG!

 Steve Barnes
 Executive Manager
 PCS-WIN
 RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
 (765)584-2288

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 On
 Behalf Of Mark Nash
 Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:50 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...

 I do wish the Tranzeos had a ping watchdog feature...
 - Original Message -
 From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:27 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo/Mtik disconnect issue...


 
 Odd behavior. This must be a mismatch in the protocol between the
   
 Tranzeo
 
 units and MikroTik. We have tested many different units (E-zy.net,
 Senao/Engenius, MikroTik, Ubiquiti as well Teletronics) and never  
 seen
   
 this
 behavior you describe. However I do recall way back someone had very
 strange
 behaviors going on between Tranzeo units and his MikroTik AP. He had
   
 some
 
 Senao CB3 units and some Smartbridges that he swapped some of the
   
 Tranzeo
 
 units with and the problems with those clients went away.
 Not sure what the Tranzeo units are or are not doing when
   
 communicating
 
 with
 the MikroTik AP thought this been long since fixed but if it was the
 problem
 seems to once again surfaced.

 / Eje

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
 On
 
 Behalf Of Steve Barnes
 Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:20 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Cc: Scott Reed; Blake King; Rick Harnish
 Subject: [WISPA

Re: [WISPA] Taxes

2008-09-30 Thread Anthony Will
Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by 
Federal law.
Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal 
etc. this includes VOIP. 

Disclaimer, I am not a tax attorney nor do I play one on the boob tube 
or even youtube.

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Mike Hammett wrote:
 Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable?


 --
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 
 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/

   



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] Taxes

2008-09-30 Thread Anthony Will
There are very few states that are allowed to tax Internet.  Texas is 
the only one I can think of off the top of my head.


   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#column-one, 
search 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Nondiscrimination_Act#searchInput

The *Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act*, Pub.L. 108-435 
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_lawsdocid=f:publ435.108,
 
is the current U.S. federal law that bans Internet taxes 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes in the United States. 
Signed into law on December 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_3, 
2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004, by George W. Bush 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush, it extended until 2007 
the then-current moratorium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium on 
new and discriminatory taxes on the Internet 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes. It also extended the 
federal prohibition against state and local Internet access taxes until 
November 2007.


The law's co-authors were Representative 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives 
Chris Cox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox (R 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party-California 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), Senator 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator George Allen 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28U.S._politician%29 
(R-Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), and Senator 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator Ron Wyden 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden (D 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party-Oregon 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon).

The law was supported by a congressionally-sponsored study commission 
known as the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which studied 
Internet taxes in 1999 and 2000. The Commission was chaired by 
then-Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore, III, who led a coalition of 
Commission members to issue a final report opposing taxation of the 
Internet and eliminating federal telephone taxes, among other ideas.

On November 1, 2007, President Bush signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
Amendment Acts of 2007 into law. It extends the prohibitions against 
multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce until November 
1, 2014.

Here is the original act
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_lawsdocid=f:publ435.108


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Paul Kralovec wrote:
 Indiana is particularly aggressive on the collection of sales and use taxes,
 as I learned from personal experience. 

 Paul D. Kralovec
 President
 Unplugged Cities, LLC
 800 Washington Ave No
 Suite 501
 Minneapolis, MN 55401
  
 W: 763-235-3001
 F:  763-647-7998
 C:  952-270-9107
 www.unpluggedcities.com
  
 IMPORTANT NOTICES: Confidential Information. The information contained in or
 attached to this e-mail may be confidential information subject to
 protection by law or terms of applicable confidentiality agreements, and is
 intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
 reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
 agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
 notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
 communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee indicated
 in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person),
 you should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:24 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes

 Well I was told by the Indiana state tax department that all communications
 including internet access should be charged sales tax. Although I don't know
 anyone here doing that.

 John Buwa
 Michiana Wireless


   
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Anthony Will
 Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:02 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes

 Any Internet except for a few grandfathered states is tax except by
 Federal law.
 Phone services are taxed to the end of the world, USF, State, Federal
 etc. this includes VOIP.

 Disclaimer, I am not a tax attorney nor do I play one on the boob tube
 or even youtube.

 Anthony Will
 Broadband Corp.
 http://www.broadband-mn.com



 Mike Hammett wrote:
 
 Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable?


 --
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 
   
 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] I want to port their numbers!!!!

2008-08-26 Thread Anthony Will
If you take a look at the exemption they have to have less then 50,000 
phone numbers or lines.  I can't remember which.
Do a bit of research on it and find the exact clause that enables them 
to do that.  Most likely they are to large to qualify.  Then send them a 
nice letter from a nice attorney.  Also be ready for the long haul.  
They will fight it just to keep you and others from coming in if they 
are in the right or not.  It would be a good idea to find some others in 
your area with a interest in this such as the local cable company or 
others that would want the same thing.  Pool your resource and make it 
look like you and your partners are as big as they come. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



John McDowell wrote:
 Local Cooperative Telco will not let us port. What is my work around?

 Order PRI to our tower in their territory? We're working with VoxCorp, so
 they have to be able to grab those numbers even if we do something like
 this..

 Verizon  Wireless has local numbers with this company for their cellular,
 and it has to be because they have towers in their territory with PRIs???

 Somebody have a solution?

   



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] 3650 XR3 locations

2008-06-05 Thread Anthony Will
Not to burst a bubble but the special type certification that is part 
of part-15 was created for unlicensed solutions.  Most license holders 
are responsible for the equipment that is in use. Thus the equipment is 
only certified to meet special regs of the band, unlike unlicensed where 
the majority of the responsibility is on the manufacture. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
 Exactly, with that attitude from the FCC then all of my network is 100% FCC
 certified because all the radio's have an FCC number on them, I would just
 have to put that number on the outside of the rootenna.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 WAVELINC
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 419-562-6405
 www.wavelinc.com
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Butch Evans
 Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:57 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations

 On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Kyle Duren wrote:

   
 *Response: *
 

   
 Since the device is already certified, it can be installed into a 
 final basestation without further approval, as long as the FCCID 
 label is attached on the outside of the final product.  However, if 
 your company wishes to obtain it's own FCC number for the final 
 product, then you must apply for an original FCCID.
 

 WOW!  I wonder if this type of flexibility carries over to 2.4 and 
 5gig.  I know this has been a REALLY contentious question, but if 
 that's the response in 3.65, I have to question the reality of FCC 
 views in other bands that are NOT licensed.

   



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] Comcast

2008-05-09 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
I also heard through sources that Comcast is working on WiMax with a 
partner. Only got vague details, and I'm not sure if they've said 
anything publicly about it.

Just, FYI.

-Tony

Mike Hammett wrote:
 http://techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml
 
 
 --
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] OSPF tips

2008-04-16 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
Putting everything in Area 0 works just fine, as long as you don't go 
above say, 50 routers. Yes, that is a just a number pulled out of the 
air. Why? Well, it depends on the cpu in the router, and how long you're 
willing to wait for a full convergence. As I see it, I wouldn't let it 
go above 50 routers in any single area.. not even with our decently 
powered ImageStream Rebels.

Just my 2p,

-Tony

Bryan Scott wrote:
 rabbtux rabbtux wrote:
 Played with OSPF some, but am unclear on how to use the
 'area' parameter in my topology.  
 
 
 Unless yours is a multi-state topology with hundreds of routers, put 
 everything into Area 0.  It keeps things really simple.
 
 -- Bryan
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV white spaces: Daily Update

2008-03-29 Thread Anthony Will
You show that value by the economic impact of every wifi, microwave, 
wireless phone, invisible dog fence ever sold and the tax revenue 
generated from those items.  You also show how 2.4ghz is utilized vs EBS 
or BBS spectrum, or any other spectrum for that matter. 

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Tom DeReggi wrote:
 AMEN, Jack.

 And that is the message we need to get to Congress, FCC, and more 
 importantly the Press.

 There is no better proof, than the 700Mhz auction, to what happens when it 
 goes to Auction.
 Save the WhiteSpaces, is about preserving the American way of Free 
 Enterprise for small business, Enabling Competition and Choice for 
 consumers..

 The tough problem is argueing why the government can fairly give it away, 
 after equivellent valued spectrum was just sold for Billions.
 Governement is big on consistency and equal treatment.

 Does anyone have any stats on how much revenue the FCC brought in for 
 Licensed Part 101 over the years, so far?
 I'm just wondering what arguement could be made for alternate Licensing 
 scemes.
 How can we show the Billions of value, that consumers would gain, if it were 
 Unlicenced?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:43 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: CTIA urges FCC to license -- and auction -- TV 
 white spaces: Daily Update


   
 Thanks for the update. This link might be a little easier for some to
 follow.

 http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/FREE/120719096/1007

 Of course the telco incumbents who now own the cellular wireless
 industry want to auction the TV white space. They just snagged the 700
 MHz spectrum because they know how to borrow billions of dollars to win
 licenses at auction.

 Licensing the TV white space would give ATT and Verizon a total lock on
 all the remaining spectrum that the real WISP industry could use to
 compete with ATT and Verizon. Auctioning this spectrum could well spell
 the end of the real WISP business.

 What is the real WISP business??? It is WISPs as we know them today,
 the broadband wireless pioneers who proved that wireless broadband would
 really work to deliver Internet access. ATT and Verizon consider
 themselves as broadband wireless providers also (3G is certainly
 broadband wireless). They just don't call themselves WISPs. The
 incumbent telco/cellular monopolists would just love use their big bucks
 and corporate lobbying power to finally kill their off their competitors
 who legitimized the broadband wireless industry in the first place.

 jack


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Fyi. Boys and girls
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



   
 -- 
 Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the Cisco Press Book - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Design-Troubleshooting-Consulting
 FCC License # PG-12-25133
 Phone 818-227-4220   Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]





 
 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/


 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG.
 Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 
 12:00 AM


 



 
 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/

   



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] Intel-based 4-port Fast Ethernet Card - StarOS

2008-03-19 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
Honestly, My core is 100% ImageStream Routers. I have no problem 
trusting them to run, day in, day out, 100%

As far as Microtik goes, I'm curious about the question that got pushed 
aside, what do they use for Dynamic routing? Quagga? Zebra? I ask 
because from what I've heard they're violating open source licensing 
with their MPLS implementation. I can't remember from who or where, and 
honestly I've never touched a Microtik, but someone expressed grave 
concern for their licensing. I personally would do more digging on that 
before I ever bought one of their products

Just my 2p,

-Tony


Joshua Rowe wrote:
 This should maybe be a new thread, and I'm not sure Tom is making this point 
 or not,, but I agree, would you trust your CORE to anything but Cisco? I'm 
 not sure I would. 
 
 Josh 
 
 --
 NexGenAccess Inc. http://www.nexgenaccess.com
 
 
 -- Original Message ---
 From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:45:36 -0500
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Intel-based 4-port Fast Ethernet Card - StarOS
 
 What does MT do that Star doesn't do in the routing arena?
 I'll add that both platforms have the same flaw.  They use 
 OpenSource, but then close the system. Seems kind of opposite the purpose.
 On a possitive note, I have to say, Mikrotik has really innovated 
 their platform, with a lot of their own code and solutions, to solve 
 problems that couldn't be solved using the previous alternative 
 popular open source apps usually used for those purposes.  My hats 
 goes off  to them.

 But the risk that keeps popping up is...  They aren't Cisco, in the 
 terms of 1000's of top tier people to research and support 
 development of their platform. Can we trust MT's or any small 
 player's proprietary code, for the long haul?  In the Open Source 
 world, there is a clear answer to that, make it open source, and if 
 the developer stops maintaining it, there is a way to get someone to 
 take over maintaining it, without loosing the investment into the platform.

 I'm not saying companies like MT and STAROS should make their 
 proprietary code into open source. But what I like is the ability to 
 ADD packages to an existing platform.

 I can give an example, of a monthy ago, when I installed a MT router 
 because , I thought the pretty GUI would make a good impression, but 
 then 24hours later I had to pull it because there was no way for me 
 to test the performance of the link remotely, easilly for my 
 specific situation. I needed Iperf on the router. It was a better 
 choice to use a standard Linux system, basic native routing, because 
 it also enabled Iperf.

 MT and STAROS are two nice products, but this discussion doesn't 
 stop there.

 For example ImageStream, even though a bit more expensive, they 
 provide an Open system. Their OS is maintained and preloaded with a 
 few bells and whistles.  But you CAN LOAD your own code ALSO.

 Then there is Voyeta.  Its based on 2.6 Kernal of Linux, and its 
 100% open source, and give the security of using a maintained OS 
 (for example BGP and QUAGGA fixes). But you can pay extra for 
 maintenance and quicker updates.

 MT and STARTOS, will stay winners for high end WIFI Radio CPE and 
 APs. But when it comes to Core Routers, to stay competitive, they 
 really need to open the platform, and allow third party modules to 
 be loaded by owners or developers.  Sure, there is the arguement 
 that CISCO DOESNT DO  THAT, but they aren't Cisco.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 ---
 -
 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/
 --- End of Original Message ---
 
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] FW: Red Work Binder: Emergency use only!

2008-03-19 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
I suggest we test this Red Binder out at ISPCON in Chicago. Who is up to 
the challenge?

Muhahaa,

-Tony


Cliff LeBoeuf wrote:
 I have compiled a Master Reference binder.  Inside this binder you will find
 solutions to everyday ISPs problems.   If you are having problems with the
 FCC, difficulty dealing with customers, having billing problems, service
 problems, or any kind of problem, please come and get the red binder and it
 will help you through your issue.
  
  






  
 Use the red binder for all issues...it is guaranteed to make you stress-free
 and relaxed. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] IPv6 and Us

2008-03-04 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
As far as vendors go, I've seen the same thing on our end, I'm pretty 
sure none of our CPE supports it as of yet, the only thing that does is 
our routers. I would like to say that Imagestream has been great as far 
as getting us updated with IPv6 tools,  their engineers are working on 
quite a few exciting things that I think are going to help the migration 
of IPv6 into our network.

We just got our allocation last Friday, I think out of all of our 
upstreams, only 2 do IPv6 on their own backbone. And honestly I'm a bit 
worried to contact one of them..  they're going to want to charge us for it.

-Tony

Bryan Scott wrote:
 Anthony R. Mattke wrote:
 Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us 
 looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our 
 next step.

   What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on 
 their network yet?
 
 I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on 
 Linux and OS X.  That's as far as I got.
 
 There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 
 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as 
 far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested.
 
 We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 
 allocation.  The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was 
 that nobody's eating their own dog food.  All the vendors are making 
 IPv6 compliant gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various 
 issues in their testing).
 
 That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody 
 deploys.  Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it 
 works.  A big chicken-and-egg problem...
 
 After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers 
 about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would 
 work.  They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or 
 couldn't do it.
 
 -- Bryan
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] IPv6 and Us

2008-03-04 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
Well, some of the old Telco's don't seem to understand that things are 
changing. They still operate with the understanding that everything is 
special and needs to be added onto the cost of your circuit. Someone 
*cough*ATT*cough* wanted to charge for the ability to use bgp community 
blackholes on their network. IPv6? Oh yeah, I had to do some digging on 
this, its part of our MIS++^3 service, we'll pursue this on an 
individual case basic and need to open an ICB pricing request to 
determine the cost to add this feature to your circuit.

#$$(*#@(@#$)(@[EMAIL PROTECTED](@#

ahem, yeah.. You get the drift.

-Tony

John J. Thomas wrote:
 I hope they don't charge more for IPv6. Currently ARIN is offering discounts 
 for those that want to deploy IPv6, and they are considering making IPv4 cost 
 more as time goes on in order to push IPv6 adoption.
 
 John
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Anthony R. Mattke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 06:55 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPv6 and Us

 As far as vendors go, I've seen the same thing on our end, I'm pretty 
 sure none of our CPE supports it as of yet, the only thing that does is 
 our routers. I would like to say that Imagestream has been great as far 
 as getting us updated with IPv6 tools,  their engineers are working on 
 quite a few exciting things that I think are going to help the migration 
 of IPv6 into our network.

 We just got our allocation last Friday, I think out of all of our 
 upstreams, only 2 do IPv6 on their own backbone. And honestly I'm a bit 
 worried to contact one of them..  they're going to want to charge us for it.

 -Tony

 Bryan Scott wrote:
 Anthony R. Mattke wrote:
 Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us 
 looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our 
 next step.

   What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on 
 their network yet?

 I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on 
 Linux and OS X.  That's as far as I got.

 There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 
 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as 
 far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested.
 We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 
 allocation.  The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was 
 that nobody's eating their own dog food.  All the vendors are making 
 IPv6 compliant gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various 
 issues in their testing).

 That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody 
 deploys.  Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it 
 works.  A big chicken-and-egg problem...

 After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers 
 about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would 
 work.  They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or 
 couldn't do it.

 -- Bryan


 
 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/
 -- 

 Anthony R. Mattke
 Senior Network Engineer
 CyberLink International
 888.293.3693 x4353
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 
 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/

 
 
 
 
 
 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/

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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/


[WISPA] IPv6 and Us

2008-03-03 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us 
looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our 
next step.

Has anyone sat down and done anything thinking about how they're going 
to meet guidelines for deployment? More specifically how are we going to 
hand out a /48 to each customer ? This is much easier in a PtP world, 
but with PtMP it makes it much more difficult to manage. Who is using 
link-locals for PTP router connections on your backbone? What about /64s 
? Anyone see major issues with doing such? What about IPv6-IPv6 
gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on their network yet? Are 
people running dual stack instead of depending on a gateway/tunnel? Or 
have there been issues with setting up dual stack POPs?

There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 
integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as 
far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested.


-Tony

-- 

Anthony R. Mattke
Senior Network Engineer
CyberLink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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] MT tools

2008-02-12 Thread Anthony Will
Under tools in winbox there are several solutions from ping floods to 
torch (a per stream traffic analyzer), under the interface you can look 
at the status tab to get CCQ (quality) readings to exactly how much 
traffic is being compressed by hardware data compression.  In a terminal 
it would be under /tool or /interface wireless.
Is there something specific you are looking for?

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Dennis Burgess - Link Techs Inc wrote:
 What kind of information do you need?


 Dennis M. Burgess
 Mikrotik Certified Consultant
 Link Technologies, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri
 --WISP/Network Support Services--
 +1 314-686-1302


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Travis Johnson
 Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:52 PM
 To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [WISPA] MT tools

 Hi,

 Has anyone found any good tools to do troubleshooting on Mikrotik 
 wireless links? Many other vendors provide tools (i.e. Trango has su 
 ping, testrflink and linktest) that allow testing of an individual 
 wireless link directly from the AP. The only thing I have found with 
 Mikrotik is their bandwidth test and it doesn't show much information.

 Any help or ideas are appreciated.

 Travis
 Microserv


 
 
 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/




 
 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/

   



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] Akamai

2008-01-08 Thread Anthony Lemons
Getting the Akamai servers installed on your network doesn't cost 
anything. They ship you the equipment free of charge and you just 
install it. More info can be found on their 
site:  http://www.akamai.com/html/partners/network_partner.html


Anthony

At 11:34 AM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
I'm thinking of doing some kind of caching again too.  What's the 
cost for this type of thing?  We only service about 450 or 500 
broadband subs, using two different networks.  I'm not sure of the 
cost benefit these days.


thanks,
marlon

- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai



We love Akamai... especially during big Windows Update periods. :)

We serve 12 school districts and they all seem to do their updates 
on PC's and servers during the same times (during school breaks) 
and the Akamai servers save us a ton of bandwidth and the customers 
get GREAT speeds doing the updates.


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:

Anybody have any experience with Akamai?

I'm thinking of adding some Akamai  servers to my network again, 
looking for opinions.


Thanks

George






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] OT......Question

2007-12-10 Thread Anthony Will
Dell and HP still sell XP.  They are big enough to make Microsoft bend 
on the Vista release issues.  We only have this month left though as far 
as I can tell.  My bet is if SP1 doesn't resolve most of the issues with 
Vista that Dell and the like will continue to pressure MS for a XP 
solution.  This being mostly for business workstations. 


http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130657-c,xp/article.html
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17733/Dell-Resumes-Windows-XP-Sales-MS-To-Sell-Software-for-Cheap/

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Jeff Broadwick wrote:
Is it still possible to buy a new computer and use XP? 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question

Games.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT..Question


  

We've standardized on XP/PRO SP2 for the office.

We tried Vista and, although some fanatics show it can be a bit but
definitely slower, that's not meaningful.

The computers, themselves, suffer intractable problems with Vista with 
less

than 2G memory, but with that memory or more, it's OK.  (Why it becomes
unstable under 2Gb is the subject of wild, physical arguments).

We haven't had driver problems.

We have had significantly more hang-ups with Vista.  Not many, but perhaps
50% more.

The GUI is, perhaps, more intuitive but it splits functionality that was, 
in
XP, in one place into several far flung places.  It may make more sense 
but

drives the old folks (over 20 years old) crazy.

The reallocation of facilities that were in XP-HOME and XP-PRO into
fragmented pieces within an array of options of Vista upgrades is driving
the support guys nuts.  Ordinary users who had a handle on XP are now
calling support.

The removal of OUTLOOK 2007 from Student/Teacher 2007 meant that folks 
with

a teacher wife and student kids can't use it for work.  That just makes
people mad at Microsoft.

Since we stick with Lenovo/IBM for laptops, etc., we can still order 
XP/PRO

(at a small cost).

It doesn't appear that VISTA was a good business/technical decision on
Microsoft's part but I'm sure it will pay off through the sales of new 
PCs.


It's not the end of the world...it just appears dumb...really dumb.

It turns out that Macintosh computers with Microsoft Office have been more
and more popular and we accept that for our system.  They have caused no
problems...perhaps because the Mac-fanatics stick together and 
aggressively

help each other the way early PC users used to do.  There are only a tiny
fraction of PC users that utilize applications that aren't available on
Macintosh as the same or better.  That argument doesn't fly anymore.

. . . J o n a t h a n



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:02 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question

Hi,

Every single test out there shows Vista is SLOWER on an identical machine
running XP. Why would I upgrade to an OS that is slower?

Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:


Agreed.  This happens with every OS release...  It's OH SO HORRIBLE...
but then in a year or so, everyone forgets their fabricated fears.
I've been using Vista for about 4 months and have 0 issues with Vista
itself.  Sure, I've had problems with vendors who are slow to update
software\drivers, but that's not Microsoft's fault...  that's the
fault of lazy vendors *cough* DELL *cough*.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT..Question


  

In a message dated 12/9/2007 11:25:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

dreaded  MS Vista


Why is everyone so down on Vista?  I have been using it for a long
time, starting with the Beta Version-now using the Ultimate Version,
without problems [laptops and PC's].  I think it is more a learning
curve with so many changes from the earlier versions.  Vista is here
to stay and you  should be learning it-not going backwards.


Walter W.  Stumpf Jr.
Xanadu Group Inc.
179 Statesville Quarry Road
Lafayette NJ  07848-3128 USA
973-702-3899
fax  775-667-1995




**Check out AOL's list of 2007's
hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000300
0001)



-
---

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org

[WISPA] Reducing per customer costs

2007-11-30 Thread Anthony Will
Earlier I brook out our cost per customer.  Our Billing, Admin, and 
support costs are using over half of our cash flow.  Is this comparable 
for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs?


--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com




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] max average # subs to a 900 AP?

2007-11-30 Thread Anthony Will
60-70 on a 3mb aggregate.  120 or so on 7mb.  This is with a majority of 
1mb plans.  So about a 20 to 1 ratio.  That seems to be a sweet spot for 
our system. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Patrick Leary wrote:

I'd appreciate any feedback you folks are willing to provide. I suspect
the numbers are substantially lower than 5 GHz APs due to the smaller
system capacity, but I'd rather not assume.

Regards,

 
Patrick Leary

AVP, Market Development
Alvarion, Inc.





 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp 
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer viruses(84). 






 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.







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/

  




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] Reducing per customer costs

2007-11-30 Thread Anthony Will
Just to stay in line with the thought.  at $25 per month that would mean 
two new customers a month or the profits of 25 of my customers to pay 
for that.  Now if i say had 200 customers that would be 1/8 of my 
profits

:)
I have been trying to get my partner to agree to the dues since the 
inception of of WISPA.  Even if it means going in the red.  I can 
appreciate the reasoning though.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



D. Ryan Spott wrote:
Join WISPA, 

$25 bucks a month. The URL is at the bottom of this email. 


You get great advice and answers to this email on the members list! :)

ryan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Reducing per customer costs

Earlier I brook out our cost per customer.  Our Billing, Admin, and 
support costs are using over half of our cash flow.  Is this comparable 
for you and how do or plan to reduce those costs?


  




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] What basic ROI do you target?

2007-11-30 Thread Anthony Will
On another list I answered 6 - 9 months with $100 install fee and we 
retain ownership.  In reality we lease to own all equipment on 36 month 
leases.  On average $12 per month per radio goes to this lease.  This is 
for our $40 or $200 plan it does not mater.  92% of our plans are sold 
at the $49.95 per month rate.  So for ruff numbers per month, here it is 
per customer averaged over a 12 month cycle.  (Hope this helps someone 
looking to get into the business)(P.S. I hope I don't scare you off)


  Hard numbers = will not change with volume
Installation cost $75 (contractor) + $10 in misu. hardware = $15 to the 
good (we charge $100 installation)

Customer Radio = $12
Sales / marketing = $3.50
  Soft numbers = will go down with volume
Tower rental on average per customer = $2
Billing and administrative costs = $7
Bandwidth = $7.50
Support = $7
Infrastructure = $4
Misu. (vehicle, office rent, utilities, etc.) = $5.50

Total per month = $48.95
Total profit in first year per customer = $12 + $15 (made at install) = $27

These numbers are supporting a growth rate of about 18 customers per 
month. 
..Why am I doing this again?? 
So can anyone guess how many customers we have right now?  (hint more 
then 100 less then 1000)


So from these numbers we are profitable on day one ... granted it is 
only $16 but better then a stick in the eye. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

We lease all of our CPE, therefore our ROI is 0 months. The 
installation fee ($99) covers the truck roll for the installation, so 
starting from day one I am making profit on that customer. We have 
been doing it this way for over 4 years now.


Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

I am curious about how divergent the responses may be. In your answer,
include just the cost of the truck roll and CPE measured against any
set-up and service initiation fees charged with the monthly subscription
fee.

Years ago, it was not uncommon for WISPs to say they need a 24-month
basic return per subscriber. These days I suspect most will say under 9
months.
Patrick Leary
AVP, Market Development
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




 
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
computer viruses(84). 
 







 
 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  
computer viruses.
 







 


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/


  



 


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/





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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-20 Thread Anthony Will
I completely disagree that the government should have anything to do 
with our industry and that it is a given except in matters of 
anti-trust, managing a scarce public resource (radio spectrum) or 
safety.  Anything else hands off.  And that also applies to any other 
industry. 
I could understand regulating us if VOIP replaces the normal PSTN 
network for safety reasons ak. E911.  This is never going to happen 
though due to cell phones.  I also can understand the need for CALEA and 
agree with it, again for the safety of the public.  Other then that I 
can't see any other reason why we should have any regulations on our 
industry or any other industry.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



Clint Ricker wrote:

The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except
for the regulatory liability of ineptness.  The Comcast deal, using Sandvine
gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets
into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy
that that usually applies to residential connections is best effort.

Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or,
in the comcast case, actively disrupting service.

The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or
  

is the government/consumer/application?




So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear?  :)  (_please_, don't
answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the
government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate.
You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car
wash.  You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and,
just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able
to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will,
and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications
utility.  I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do
whatever the hell I want with it idea.   What level and what type of
regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should
exist on some level is a given.










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/






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/

  




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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-19 Thread Anthony Will
The application is very important.  If the technology that we had at our 
disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care 
less.  Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use 
the better for us.  Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can 
provide our customers is superior customer service.  At this time we are 
behind on every other metric, be it bandwidth, latency, etc.  We also 
have a very limited amount of resources to deploy in.  Compared to cable 
that has literally 2ghz plus of spectrum to use we can't even hope to 
compete on a bang for buck approach. So with that in mind I have to 
agree that Comcast's is the only way we can survive for last mile 
delivery.  I also agree as for a carrier / wholesale the pipe should be 
as dumb as possible and just pass bits as fast as it can.  My main 
concern is that as a private business owner I am the only one qualified 
to say how my network and business should operate.  No government agency 
or bureaucrat could possibly understand my business better then myself.  
Comcast is no different.  Let the free market figure out how to make 
this work.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://www.broadband-mn.com



David E. Smith wrote:

Clint Ricker wrote:

No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to 
customers for

them to use full tilt 24x7.  Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose.  Sell
metered.  Put caps on.  Why restrict based on content type?


Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some 
don't.


My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, 
because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted 
with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, 
using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, 
annoying twenty or more other customers.


Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're 
downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, 
legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll 
get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the 
service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's 
probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most 
customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other 
service providers, and I don't weep overly for them.



You should not care--it doesn't cost you
any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB 
a month

for.


The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so 
I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic.


David Smith
MVN.net



 


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/





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] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks

2007-11-18 Thread Anthony Will
Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here 
wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and 
could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer 
the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many 
ways a partnership like this could work to everyones benefit.  I would 
get in bed with them just for the opportunity to get at there customer 
database. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
www.broadband-mn.com

Travis Johnson wrote:
Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? 
What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, 
different everything. It would never work.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Like we didn't see it comming :-)

The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change 
in model, or something like that.
What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk 
support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers 
that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, 
not try and become one.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks




http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com






 


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/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 
269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM







 


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/





 


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/



--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://broadband-mn.com




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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-18 Thread Anthony Will
 is an extreme problem. Ie some 
providers in
for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very 
fast and
costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is 
a T1 or
two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not 
handle

large amount of traffic.



Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC.


http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume 


nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711



/ Eje

WISP-Router, Inc.



 


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/





 


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/



--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://broadband-mn.com




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] Alternative to Meraki mesh??

2007-10-28 Thread Anthony Lemons

Tim,

I asked Ruckus about this and their upcoming mesh system will be for 
indoors only.


Anthony

At 11:21 AM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
I understand that Ruckus is going to release a mesh system. I have 
not heard when, but I believed it to be soon.


Tim





** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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/


[WISPA] Alternative to Meraki mesh??

2007-10-25 Thread Anthony Lemons
Anyone know if there is an equipment line along the lines of what 
Meraki is selling?  I've been checking out Meraki and like the low 
cost, self install, mesh technology, etc. but I do not like that you 
will be depending on their backend (Dashboard) software. Are there 
any other companies offering products along this line?


Anthony



** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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] Alternative to Meraki mesh??

2007-10-25 Thread Anthony Lemons

John,

Trust?  I don't trust anyone. :)
I'm just not to keen on the idea of building out a network using 
their (Meraki) equipment without having full control over the 
customer. You have to use their backend Dashboard and they do the 
billing. The small form factor of their boxes is cool and it appears 
their product works as advertised. I would rather pay my money to buy 
a piece of equipment and software that I run and control instead of a 
service, which is what it appears Meraki is migrating towards.


Anthony

At 03:22 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:

Anthony,

The CUWIN project has their mesh software running on Meraki:
http://www.cuwin.net/pr/2006/meraki (but this is a year 
old and I

haven't heard much about it since...)

CUWIN is the Champaign / Urbana Illinois community wireless group
(started at UIUC I think).

What's wrong with Meraki that you would trust some other company over
them?
-John





** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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] ISPCON - WHOSE GOING?

2007-10-15 Thread Anthony R. Mattke

Anyone planning a WISPA gettogether?

We're flying out this afternoon and wouldn't mind hooking up with people 
later tonight. (Dinner, Bar, etc.)


-Tony

George Rogato wrote:

I'll be there

Mac Dearman wrote:

I thought I would see who is planning to attend ISPCON?

We need to make a plan!

very evil grin
Mac





** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON 
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at 
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **


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/


[WISPA] What we like to call a D3 moment.

2007-08-22 Thread Anthony R. Mattke

To add humor to everyone's life I'd like to share the start of my day.

At about 3:20 am, a dump truck decided to disconnect us from our 480 
Volt 3 phase shore power. Fun? Sure !


Pictures available at http://mattke.net/d3/

Video now posted on You Tube !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5CZu_XBf70

--

Anthony R. Mattke
Sr. Network Engineer
Cyberlink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA   www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available til August 31 **


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] Managing your network on the go-go-go!

2007-08-10 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
I have the 8525, its a pretty decent phone, but again its sold for ATT 
-- you can download keyboard software that has CTRL key functionality. 
I use pocket putty for ssh currently, and Mocha VNC for.. well, 
obviously VNC.


Phone works pretty well, they are some firmware bugs with it. But its 
worth looking into.


-Tony

--

Anthony R. Mattke
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


CHUCK PROFITO wrote:

HTC 8525  http://www.america.htc.com/products/8525/default.html

Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!


I'm looking for a way to keep an eye on my network, and to fix some 
basic stuff, while hiking, or on vacation, or what-have-you. Ideally, 
something I could take to a baseball game with me, even.


A laptop computer is far too big for what I've got in mind, as it's 
likely to double as a pass-around pager for whoever's on call this 
week. Thus, I'm probably limited to a Blackberry or maybe a Windows 
Mobile device like the Motorola Q, running on a cell phone network.


Most of our towers are running Valemount's StarOS software, so we need 
something that has an SSH client, and that SSH client needs to support 
key chording (Control-whatever, basically). Most devices like this, a 
Web browser is a given, which should handle the rest of our needs 
(looking in on the network monitoring system, and a couple Ligowave 
towers). The ability to receive (and, maybe, send) emails is important, 
but that's pretty much guaranteed these days too. (Worst case, I whip up 
some email-to-SMS voodoo.)


VNC support would be swell but probably not strictly needed. (Besides, 
it'd take forever to scroll around a 1208x1024 desktop on one of those...)


I can't be the first one here who's looked at getting a Blackberry (or 
something similar) to handle basic network stuff remotely. What works? 
What doesn't? Will I even be sorta-happy with, say, a Blackberry 8700?


David Smith
MVN.net


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/





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] Orlando

2007-04-05 Thread Anthony R. Mattke
You're not only a member of WISP, but you're also a client^H^H^H^H^H^H
manufacturer.

(see older TV add for joke)

-Tony

-- 


Anthony R. Mattke
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Orlando

But I'm not a wisp...I work for a manufacturer...how does that add up?!?!
:-) 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carl A jeptha
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Orlando

So that explains why you became a wisp, you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express
(See TV Ad for the joke). ;-)

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



Jeff Broadwick wrote:
 I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express just north of Downtown Disney last
time.
 Nice hotel, and it was about $100/night.

 You can count me and Doug Hass in on the dinner Peter.  Thanks!

 Jeff
  

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 On Behalf Of Peter R.
 Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:35 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Orlando

 I'll take Sam's advice and pre-plan.

 Couple of notes:

 The ISPCON is at the Rosen Centre Hotel @ 9840 International Drive, 
 Orlando, Florida 32819, not to be confused with the Rosen Plaza Hotel 
 @ 9700 International Drive. Use Kayak.com to find your best room rate near
here.

 There are two entertainment spots within 2 miles on International Drive: 
 Pointe Orlando (http://www.pointeorlando.com/) and the Mercado. 
 (There's a trolley available on International Drive, but traffic is so 
 deep, walking can be faster).

 How about dinner on May 23 at Maggiano's Little Italy? After dinner 
 there are many bars available in the Pointe Orlando complex. (On May 
 24 is ISP-CEO).

 Why attend the show? The exhibits and the education. Lots of case 
 studies are being lined up for this one.

 Hope to see you there. RSVP for the dinner so I can save a private room.

 Regards,

 Peter


 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

   
 All,

 I have been working on that very issue for the last few weeks and 
 will keep you all posted.
 There are a ton of choices of restaurants north of the conference 
 hotel about 2 miles on International Drive but I have no prior 
 experience with the area so some input from Peter would definitely be 
 in order. A few places have complimentary shuttles. ;-)

 Suggestions from those who might be attending would be greatly 
 appreciated.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Sam Tetherow wrote:

 
 Now I really wish I could make it in May with Peter planning the 
 extra curricular.
 Honestly, I would avoid the poker as it really does kill the 
 conversation for the most part.
 An organized dinner as well as finding a decent bar that is within 
 walking distance of most of the hotels, both announced prior to the 
 conference would probably help to get more people together after hours.

 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/


   
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

2007-03-17 Thread Anthony Will
I would be interested in learning more about it. 


Anthony
Broadband Corp.

Russ Kreigh wrote:

Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until
the batteries are gone and need to be recharged.

The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah
charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the
batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might
burn up the charger.

Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V
system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with
before you start any modifications.

We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution.
Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive
outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too
expensive.

I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local
power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the
generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the
utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically.

We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter
output, or additional external batteries.

Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete?

Thanks,

Russ Kreigh
Network Engineer
OnlyInternet.Net
Supernova Technologies



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of paul hendry
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org
Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

Scott,

Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in 
parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't 
changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery 
count.


Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these 
things to see if they charged ;)


Cheers,

P.

-Original Message-
From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the 
original configuration.  Changing the quantity and/or type of battery 
risks damaging either the charger or the batteries.


Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes 
the runtime.


paul hendry wrote:
  
Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got 

an 
  
old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is 
they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they 
are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those 



  
sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 

2 
  

connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each.

Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries 
instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really 



  

want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4.

Cheers,

P.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

On 
  

Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS

I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, 


$100
  
batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I 
have
out in the field (80w).  It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, 

and 
  

a
19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly.  Now instead of 1 hour I get 



  

13
hours.  Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this.  

My 
  

goal
is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a 
sensible

price.

One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to 
simply
take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of 



  

the
generator.  I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to 


go.
  
It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 
1000w
generators and putting large custom tanks on them.  That is if your 

UPS 
  

is
not on the top of a water tower or something. ;)

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS


  


I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread.
Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread

Connectors:

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=263-110

Batteries:

http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html



Brian Rohrbacher wrote:


  

Can we get some links to these batteries

Re: [WISPA] Form 445

2007-02-13 Thread Anthony Will
My understanding is that only broadband providers are responsible to 
be compliant.  In order to be a broadband provider you have to offer 
symmetrical 200kb+ service.


Anthony
Broadband Corp.

Jason wrote:
1.  Here's a question: for those who don't have symmetric rates 
to/from the internet (I have 1meg down and , supposedly 128k up, but 
often it's something like 24 up, satellite you know...) streaming just 
will not work.  Can we store and forward?  Or in general, are they 
taking into account the technology being used and its capabilities?


2.  Anyone know anything about these (price etc):
   
http://www.netoptics.com/products/product_family.asp?cid=1Section=productsmenuitem=1filter=3 



they make it sound as though they are most of the solution:
   http://www.netoptics.com/pdf/CALEA_Brief.pdf

Jason

George Rogato wrote:

Well ask a question and we'll see.
Guess if I'm supposed to be the messenger, it's me.

If someone wants me to go and ask ridiculous politically radical 
questions, then forget about it. They can just dial the number and 
ask themselves.


But a non political real question is no problem.

George


JohnnyO wrote:

George - who decides what is reasonable or not ? Is this a personal
decision ?

Sorry to stick a thorn in here, but, I think Mark's questions are valid
and should be asked on behalf of WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Form 445



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.

George




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Routers

2007-02-08 Thread Anthony R. Mattke

Where are you finding those boards for $22 a piece?

-Tony

cw wrote:
We use WAR boards but if it's resi wireless LAN needed, these work fine 
http://www.pcbay.net/wgnewirowisu.html. They have Atheros chipset and 
are $22 delivered. Throw them away when they die. All the consumer grade 
stuff lasts the same length of time.


Ross Cornett wrote:
Hey guys, I hope some of you can enlighten me on what is the best line 
of router out there for home and small business.  We have used linksys 
and netgear and their broadband routers have not held up very well.   
Anyone have any ideas as to what they are using and what works best?  
I am tired of replacing these things and explaining to the customer 
their lack of quality.  Your feedback is very welcome.



Ross Cornett
VP 217 342 6201 ex 7
HofNet Communications, Inc.
www.HofNet-Communications.com

HofNet-Communications.com



--

Anthony R. Mattke
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
888.293.3693 x4353
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT hotspot

2007-02-08 Thread Anthony Will
I could be way off base here.  I dont run a hotspot with MT at this time 
but I have played with it.  You might want to try 
http://forums.mikrotik.com/ for help.
If i remember correctly when you create a hotspot server it creates a 
DHCP server for this virtual interface and thus it is a independent 
DHCP server for that hotspot.  Then you could have the MT handle the IP 
leases.   Also I believe that if you use MAC authentication for the 
hotspot what you are trying would work.


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I serve hundreds of users off this MT router... I can't turn on DHCP 
for a single location for a free hotspot. :(


Travis


Eric Muehleisen wrote:
What if you have the the MT do the DHCP to the end user instead of 
the Linksys? Turn off NAT or do DHCP passthrough or something like 
that? This way you'll have better accountability of your active 
hotspot users.


-Eric

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

We have several free hotspots that we use Linksys firewall/access 
points. The Linksys also serves the DHCP address and lease time, etc.


Is there a way with a Mikrotik to have a simple splash screen appear 
with each new MAC address that comes from the same IP address? Each 
real IP on the Linksys has a default gateway of a MT router.


Travis
Microserv



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] OT: Small office VoIP phone systems

2007-02-02 Thread Anthony Will
Allworx 6x can do that.  You will need to get the software upgrade for 
sip gateway for the off site phones.  This is a full featured PBX for a 
decent price.  I believe it can handle 6 FXO's and has two FXS ports for 
fax and such.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Ryan Spott wrote:

Sorry to be off topic here folks, but I trust all but one of you. :)

I am looking for a small office VoIP phone system. It needs to support 
at least 4 Analog (outside) phone lines and at least 16 or so SIP 
based phones. Most of the Phones will be on a LAN in the building with 
about 4 phones off-site.


I was looking at the LInksys SPA9000 coupled with the SPA400 to do 
this but I am always leery of Linksys stuff.


Can any of you lead me in the right direction? Off list is fine and I 
can put together some synopsis when I get everyones info.


thanks!

ryan

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Deliberant or HighGainAntennas to Tranzeo AP's

2006-11-08 Thread Anthony Morin
Are you doing any encryption on your AP's?  Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Hi all, Anyone have experience with this combo? AP's are Tranzeo TR-6000s w/ 13db Hpol Omni's. Also tried directly to a TR-6015 with the same result. Have tried with a Deliberant DLB2300 14db radio, and a HighGainAntennas 8186HP-19. Both radios will associate just fine (signal around -65 or so on the 19db, -70 on the 14db). Run fine for a bit and then packet loss and ping times go from bad to horrible, and they will
 eventually quit passing traffic. A restart will sometimes fix it, but sometimes won't. I've tried backing down the power, changing the ACK, etc, but nothing seems to have worked so far. Have been working with Richard at HighGain a little, and will talk with him again, but these radios seem very similar, so I'm wondering if it's either something in the radio or if there's something I need to look out for, or if they just won't work with Tranzeo AP's. The AP's are running channel 8, if that makes a difference at all. Noise floor is good. I can drop a TR-CPQ-15 in place and the link is rock solid. I'm still looking for alternatives for the Tranzeo gear (cpe
 that is). Both of these radios seem to work very well and come highly recommended, but I hate to have to switch out AP's. But, I just RMA's my 6th CPQ in a month, so it's getting a bit frustrating (plus, the 5 other boxes have beenat Trazeo fora month). Any insight or suggestions would be very much appreciated.   -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless  Anthony Morin  208 East Elm Street  Ambia, IN 47917  Office: (765) 869-5173  Cell: (765) 884-6009 
	




Sponsored LinkMortgage rates near historic lows: $150,000 loan as low as $579/mo. Intro-*Terms-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo CPE alternative

2006-10-10 Thread Anthony Morin
I would take a look at Deliberant. www.deliberant.com They ship and handle rma'spromptly, along with great customer support.  Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Trying to evaluate all of my options here, and thought I would see what other CPE are out there that are comparable to Tranzeo CPQ units (802.11b, built-in router, etc). Want to stay within that price range, but DON'T want to build a unit myself. Not that I'm not happy with the CPQ's, but I've had a run of bad ones (to the tune of 1 in almost every 10 packI get in here) and just not sure what's going on. I just got word of a price increase on the CPE units also (not the CPQ's
 though).I'd also like to get something a little smaller in physical size than the Tranzeo's. Not that they are bad, but would be nice if they weren't quite such an eyesore. Again, that's not a huge issue though.Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out. I've considered Canopy, but of course, that's an entire network change. Just not sure if I want to do that, and not sure if it would be asfinancially economical as Tranzeo in the long run.-- WISPA Wireless List:
 wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless  Anthony Morin  208 East Elm Street  Ambia, IN 47917  Office: (765) 869-5173  Cell: (765) 884-6009 
	
		Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP

2006-10-08 Thread Anthony Will
Ok I didn't realize that you where utilizing the WDS station mode.  So 
you basically have a normal AP/station setup but it is just bridged.  
Are you using N-stream?  The WDS-station mode really was designed so 
that N-stream could be used on a WDS / Bridge network.  WDS - station is 
a proprietary mode developed by MT if my understanding is correct.   If 
so the likely the issue will be resolved with the polling feature 
available with N-stream.  The reason I state this is because from the 
information provided the issue has became a problem as more load has 
been applied to the solution.  The solution is more then capable of 
handling the throughput so this would indicate an interference source.  
As 802.11 is the solution you are seeing more retransmissions as the 
wait-before-talk mechanism is causing high latency issues.  Assuming the 
interference is self generated and antenna choices are limited the 
Polling feature in N-stream likely is your best bet for fixing this. 

I currently use N-stream over WDS for one of my main back hauls to a new 
bandwidth source and it has performed flawlessly for 6 months.  This is 
using 2.9.28 software.  It has been upgraded since installation and I am 
not sure what version of the software we started with.


Anthony Will

Tom DeReggi wrote:
To be clear, Mikrotik us being used, and the 4 remote building are in 
wds station mode and only configured to talk to the 1 central master 
WDS AP, the four client WDS radios are not configured to talk to each 
other.  So all the CPE radios only have one hop to the APconnected to 
the Internet backhaul.


My theory for design was...
I had a 10 mbps backhaul. The WDS PtMP would have 16mbps (54 mbps 
modulation), to help with waste from re-transmissions. All clients are 
bandwidth managed (priority weighted method) centrally on other end of 
backhaul, to also assist with fair transmission time. Also radios use 
CDMA/CA, with the CA also assisting.  The question is, is this enough 
to let it work well with only four buildings.


I'm starting to think that it might not be. But the problem shouldn't 
be that they hear each other. we want them to hear each other, so they 
don't transmit at the same time. Thats what 802.11 needs. Hidden node 
happens because CPEs don't hear each other, and don;t know someone 
else is transmitting, from my understanding.


Part of my question is, Does WDS work differently when in Mikrotik 
Station WDS mode than a normal WDS AP?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Anthony Will 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP


It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are 
transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the 
central AP. client --WDS/AP transmitting carrier beacons or other 
data to client and passing onto to --WDS/AP--WDS/AP--Client 
(transmitting to local AP)
In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all 
trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor 
because they are all on the same channel.
There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and 
who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 
protocol. This will create issues as the more load you have on this 
setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur.  
The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help 
coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum 
more efficiently.  At least that is my opinion as soon as someone 
actually does it.  You likely are going to have to switch to a 
station /AP solution for this setup because everything is to close 
and can hear each other.  This will destroy your bridge setup unless 
you change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc.  One 
other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have 
two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Background
In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two 
CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear 
each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI 
between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 
2) Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 
3) RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant 
performance degregation.  A well know problem with well known 
solutions.

 Issue.
How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP 
its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to 
complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation.
How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist 
with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it?  If so, will 
it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so

Re: [WISPA] WDS PtMP

2006-10-07 Thread Anthony Will
On thing I forgot to mention is that every single packet transmitted is 
going to be retransmitted on all the WDS/AP connected together on the 
wireless side.  With sustained traffic that would mean that all of them 
are transmitting and receiving the 2 megs mentioned.  And we can assume 
that these units are not exactly all the same distance or under the same 
exact load so there will be very tiny differences when each unit will be 
retransmitting that 2 meg of traffic.


I am not real happy with the way I explained this let me know if it 
makes any sense  :)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Anthony Will wrote:
It would seem to me that as your load increased your WDS/APs are 
transmitting over each other as clients are trying to transmit to the 
central AP. 

   client --WDS/AP transmitting 
carrier beacons or other data to client and passing onto to 
--WDS/AP--WDS/AP--Client (transmitting to local AP)
In this scenario you have the two clients talking and one AP all 
trying to talk at the same time and thus raising your noise floor 
because they are all on the same channel.
There is not a feature in standard WDS to coordinate who can talk and 
who can not talk other then the standard CDMA layer of the 802.11 
protocol.  This will create issues as the more load you have on this 
setup the more self interference and retransmissions you will incur.  
The big thing the mesh brings to the table is the ability to help 
coordinate all of this traffic so that you can utilize the spectrum 
more efficiently.  At least that is my opinion as soon as someone 
actually does it.  You likely are going to have to switch to a station 
/AP solution for this setup because everything is to close and can 
hear each other.  This will destroy your bridge setup unless you 
change to a propitiatory system such as Trango, Canopy, etc.  One 
other thing to note is that this is all half duplex so you might have 
two many hops and thus running out of bandwidth.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Background
In standard WIFI, a principle exists called hidden note, where two 
CPEs transmit at the same time and colide because they do not hear 
each other. There are three ways to get around that, using WIFI 
between Client and AP. 1) Polling (Karlnet, Nstream, Proprietary), 2) 
Use Omnis, so radios can hear each other if in close proximity, 3) 
RTS/CTS which effectively solves the problem at a significant 
performance degregation.  A well know problem with well known solutions.
 
Issue.
How does this play our with WDS? AP to AP communication. Sure in PtP 
its a non-issue, because there are only two radios involved to 
complete the link. But WDS allows PtMP operation.
How does WDS commuication work? Does the Hidden Node problem exist 
with PtMP WDS? And if so, is there a way to address it?  If so, will 
it help to make the CPE's Omnis, so they hear each other?
 
My confusion is how WDS/WDS works compared to Station/AP modes.
 
Example application:

Using 802.11a gear.
5 seperate MTU buildings, spread out within 300 yards of each other.
1 is a Master AP Site, with an Omni, and a second backhaul radio to 
the Internet.
4 of the 5 have a direction CPE style antenna pointing to the Master 
Antenna.
WDS is used to allow the radios to operate as true transparent 
bridges, and to pass per client (5-10 clients per MTU) large packet 
VLAN traffic.
 
(Note: There is a reason we did not select Nstreme w/ Polling. It may 
have been an incompatibilty with WDS or inabilty to do transparent 
bridging with large packets, which standard 802.11 station mode does 
not support under protocol. May have been early version of Firmware, 
not sure if still an issue)
 
Why I thought it might be an issue:
 
Surveys show low noise. However, as more clients have been taken on 
(2 mbps average sustained throughput all combined), the Link quality 
started to degregate as if the noise floor was rising.
As a tempoirary measure, we switched to 5.2Ghz (indoor only FREQ, 
which appeared not to have any detectable noise in standard 802.11 
based survey tools, and was chosen because non-detectable carrier 
grade gear would not use those channels).  Its hard to believe that 
the noise floor would be that high using that freq.  So I'm wondering 
if the noise that I'm hearing is actually my own CPEs within this 
project?
The symptom was sparatic higher latency, what typically would happen 
if 802.11a had frequent retransmissions (native prorocol ARQ).  
I can look at stats to see if there are re-transmissions, but that 
data is pointless, as what I want to know is, is the retransmisison 
because my own noise or someone elses.  Its hard to tell with WiFi, 
as WiFi doesn't transmit when its not in use.  So testing in the 
middle of the night, when clients and users in town are off, may not 
be meaningful.  Its also possible, that I just have a failing

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

2006-09-27 Thread Anthony Will
part-15.org but I seem to remember that they removed access to the 
archives unless you are a member.  bullit might have changed that since.


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:

Is there a Canopy mailing list that is active?

Travis
Microserv


Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:
Here is a crude picture of one of our areas. 


Aside from the one site everything works great. 18 Canopy 900 Sectors in a 6
mile radius. Plus 2 Vertical that are not in the image. Need less to say
that town is pretty well smoked.

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you 
but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has 
traditionally understated there spec sheets.  The GPS is what sets the 
timing for the AP's.  The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's 
registered to them.  So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 
across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a 
AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time.  
Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the 
SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH 
or AP.  The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info 
across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that 
distance can come into play.  The application this is used for is for a 
cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing 
device at every tower.

 /SM
GPS --AP#1 /
\
  \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 
--SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of 
sync with AP#1)


Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for 
RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to 
propagate the timing signal.  But if you put a GPS sync generating 
device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough 
timing with AP#2 that they all would get along.


One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area 
you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the 
GPS synchronizing items.  Also again as for the distance statement.  6 
AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced.  believe me the 
messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to 
not hear another AP 6 away from it.  The two AP's that are back to back 
share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are 
listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce 
any chance of talking over each other.  The largest benefit that GPS 
sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more 
towers to be in a smaller area without self interference.  If long range 
rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if 
you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in 
the area.  So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic 
Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it.  If more is needed 
you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two 
micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 
168mb serviced to a given area. 
One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of 
the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower.  I can't 
write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the 
night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and 
explain it.  Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill 
give you my cell phone number or give you a call.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Hi,

First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI.

What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile 
range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, 
causing self-interference, correct?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:



Answers in-line

Travis Johnson wrote:

  

Hi,

I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can 
compare for myself...


Trango 2.4ghz:
5Mbps auto ratio
8 non-overlapping channels
10mhz spectrum per channel
-90 Receive level
15 mile range (without a grid)
External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna
$879 AP (WISP price)
$479 SU (WISP price)

Canopy 2.4ghz (regular):
7Mbps fixed ratio
3 non-overlapping channels
20mhz spectrum per channel
-86 Receive level


2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level

  

5 mile range (without a dish)
$902 AP (reseller price online)
$490 SU (reseller price online)

I am guessing your quoting single prices here.  Now that maybe viable

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon

2006-09-26 Thread Anthony Will
Well I have had 2.4ghz radio's link up at -89db (not very well mind you 
but...) so I don't know what to tell you other then Moto has 
traditionally understated there spec sheets.  The GPS is what sets the 
timing for the AP's.  The AP's coordinate the timing slots for all SM's 
registered to them.  So how it works is that all AP's on channel 1 
across the world all transmit at the same time, and all SM's synced to a 
AP on channel 1 with GPS timing from the AP listen at the same time.  
Distance is not relevant unless you are utilizing the feature set of the 
SM to retransmit a GPS sync pulse that it receives from and AP to a BH 
or AP.  The lag that is introduced by having to transmit that pulse info 
across the wireless link to the SM retransmitting is the only time that 
distance can come into play.  The application this is used for is for a 
cheap repeater system so that you dont have to have a GPS synchronizing 
device at every tower.

/SM
GPS --AP#1 /
   \
 \SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#2 
--SM (retransmitting GPS sync pulse) --AP#3 (this AP will be out of 
sync with AP#1)


Basically the timing is measured in nano seconds so it takes to long for 
RF to transmit the data across the wireless links to continue to 
propagate the timing signal.  But if you put a GPS sync generating 
device at AP#3 it would be in perfect time with AP#1 and close enough 
timing with AP#2 that they all would get along.


One thing to keep in mind is if you are the only Canopy shop in the area 
you can have your AP's generate the sync pulse and avoid the cost of the 
GPS synchronizing items.  Also again as for the distance statement.  6 
AP's in a cluster sharing 3 channels have to be synced.  believe me the 
messy antenna on the Canopy units dont have a good enough F/B ratio to 
not hear another AP 6 away from it.  The two AP's that are back to back 
share the same channel so that when they transmit the SM's that are 
listening are as far away from each other as possible and thus reduce 
any chance of talking over each other.  The largest benefit that GPS 
sync allows is to add additional capacity to area's by allowing for more 
towers to be in a smaller area without self interference.  If long range 
rural deployments are the plan then GPS sync will only benefit you if 
you have competitors utilizing the same equipment and configuration in 
the area.  So a Moto advantage cluster has about 84mb total (Classic 
Canopy would be 42mb) FTP bandwidth available to it.  If more is needed 
you can place the towers with in a few miles and divide a cell into two 
micro cells each with a possible 84mb of total bandwidth for a total of 
168mb serviced to a given area. 
One last note, GPS timing will not allow for two separate clusters of 
the same type ( two 2.4ghz clusters) to be on the same tower.  I can't 
write out whats in my head on this getting a little late in the 
night but if you wanted to I could talk to you over the phone and 
explain it.  Send me an email to anthonyw (at) broadband-mn.com and Ill 
give you my cell phone number or give you a call.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

First, the spec sheet on Motorola's website says -86 RSSI.

What happens when you have more than 3 towers outside of the 8 mile 
range of GPS sync? The 2.4ghz signal will definately travel that far, 
causing self-interference, correct?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:


Answers in-line

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I'd like to go back to the specs on different radios just so I can 
compare for myself...


Trango 2.4ghz:
5Mbps auto ratio
8 non-overlapping channels
10mhz spectrum per channel
-90 Receive level
15 mile range (without a grid)
External connector and dual-pol integrated antenna
$879 AP (WISP price)
$479 SU (WISP price)

Canopy 2.4ghz (regular):
7Mbps fixed ratio
3 non-overlapping channels
20mhz spectrum per channel
-86 Receive level


2.4 canopy has a -89 receive level


5 mile range (without a dish)
$902 AP (reseller price online)
$490 SU (reseller price online)


I am guessing your quoting single prices here.  Now that maybe viable 
for this discussion but realistically if a WISP is not financially 
able to purchase in 25 packs they likely are very underfunded.  So 
that the information is available a 25 pack of the Classic 2.4 ghz 
Canopy units is $6709 so if you break that down to single price that 
is about $269ea + $50 for reflector for a total of $319ea.  
http://www.doubleradius.com   It is possible to get them cheaper then 
this but you will have to deal with co-op's or ebay.com
Also I would never install a unit with a 60* pattern (Trango or 
Canopy).  Just include the$50 for a reflector or stinger from 
http://www.wirelessbehive.com





Based on the information from Mike, I could not use Canopy. In 
several areas, I have 4-5 towers located within 5 miles of each 
other how do I do that with Canopy

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-24 Thread Anthony Will
Yes,  Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or has 
a canopy product installed for service.  This is a $40 mail in rebate 
that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed supplied.  
The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola.  The ISP is 
prohibited from receiving this money.  My guess on this is because they 
will actually have to pay it for every single radio they sell 
Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of the fact that 
it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would prefer they just drop 
the radio cost by $40 but business is business. 



Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for 
advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with 
mail in rebate  We advertise it as one month free service.  I must add 
that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential customer 
advertising uptake.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs


If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big 
concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate 
program

that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing

snip
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
/snip

CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack:
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends
December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE 
consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack 
price,

so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango
site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities?

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk
BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC,
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage
area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use omni's
so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are
playing in the same sand box.

Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM,
WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.

Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is
full. We attempted

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-24 Thread Anthony Will
No, it is my understanding that within the contractual terms of the 
agreement they are not allowed to directly solicit or sell my customers 
information.


Anthony Will

Travis Johnson wrote:
Ahhh... there's always a catch... so now Motorola has your customer's 
address and can use that for their own marketing, etc. without you 
ever knowing. They could possibly even sell the list to someone 
(ClearWire) down the road and you would never know.


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:

Yes,  Motorola provides a service to any customer that purchases or 
has a canopy product installed for service.  This is a $40 mail in 
rebate that has to have a unique MAC address of the radio installed 
supplied.  The end customer receives this rebate from Motorola.  The 
ISP is prohibited from receiving this money.  My guess on this is 
because they will actually have to pay it for every single radio they 
sell Personally I am a bit frustrated with the program, not of 
the fact that it doesnt work or any thing like that but I would 
prefer they just drop the radio cost by $40 but business is business.


Obviously this can help with the residential end of things for 
advertising free or reduced cost installations or months service with 
mail in rebate  We advertise it as one month free service.  I must 
add that the program has had a noticeable effect on our residential 
customer advertising uptake.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Are you saying that Motorola holds the financing?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs


If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big 
concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate 
program

that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing

snip
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
/snip

CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack:
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends
December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE 
consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle 
pack price,

so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the 
trango

site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities?

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions 
junk

BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC,
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my 
coverage

area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use 
omni's

so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are
playing in the same sand box.

Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)

Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-23 Thread Anthony Will
I haven't payed for a power supply in about a year.  My distributor 
http://www.doubleradius.com usually tosses them in on specials and 
such.  The prices I listed where from their website.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Charles Wu wrote:

If you're serving the residential market, and price is the big concern, it's
worth noting that Canopy has a $40 / customer residential rebate program
that's been going on for almost 2 years now

It's also worth noting with Canopy that you need to add ~$10 / unit for
power supplies (they are sold separately)

Regarding pricing

snip
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)

/snip

CPE pricing (if you're focusing on residential), should be adjusted to

25 pack: 
LITE: $129 NET ($149 - 40 + 10) -- (this is currently a promo that ends

December 31)
Normal: $237 NET ($267 - 40 + 10)

100 pack:
Normal: $186 NET ($216 - $40 + 10)

Additionally, there are companies out there with Motorola Approved 0%
Financing programs that will let you spread your larger pack CPE consumption
over a longer period of time and get you to the next tier bundle pack price,
so you don't tie up important your working capital in inventory / gear

-Charles

---
Operating Manager - CTI
Yes...I'm back

WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Anthony Will
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs


Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango 
site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for 
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? 

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th 
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk 
BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC, 
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage 
area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont 
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on 
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use omni's 
so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are 
playing in the same sand box. 


Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:
  

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)

This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data
on any of these radios:

Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, 
WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:



Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started 
using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU 
between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp 
protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their 
actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an 
upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-23 Thread Anthony Will
I will agree that Trango prices are lower then Moto Canopy.  The 900mhz 
can come with integrated or connectorized for different prices but they 
are more expensive then what I listed.  I just wanted to show that the 
difference in pricing is not a world of difference that Alvarion.   You 
have to take the feature set and decide if the added features make them 
worth the cost.  I looked at Trango and even visited a network utilizing 
them for BH for their wi-fi network.  Canopy's C/I is what sold me on 
the product.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Travis Johnson wrote:
Trango offers many different CPE (5830, Fox, Fox Atlas, etc.). They 
have listed on their website the Fox Atlas CPE for $149 for a 30 pack 
pricing. This is a 10Mbps radio and with a $30 dish will reach up to 
10 miles.


I currently have a 22 mile 900mhz link with Trango (using an omni on 
the AP) and a 30.1 mile link with 2.4ghz Trango (also using an omni).


The quantity discount pricing you have listed is very close to 
Trango's pricing on the 900mhz and 2.4ghz units... except Trango 
already has a dual polarity antenna AND an external antenna connector 
as part of that price. How much does the price go up on the Canopy 
(Cyclone?) to get the connector? Are your guys having to haul two 
different radios for each frequency just in case?


Travis
Microserv

Anthony Will wrote:

Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the 
trango site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack 
pricing for trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what 
qualities?
I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 
5th largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using 
Alvarions junk BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a 
local ILEC, Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest 
of my coverage area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using 
omni's and I dont have any issues with interference.  The longest 
customer link I have on 900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link 
is 12 miles.  I use omni's so that I dont completely destroy the 
airwaves for others that are playing in the same sand box.

Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 
mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 
mile range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more 
data on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, 
HAM, WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not 
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We 
started using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 
trango SU between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see 
fellow wisp protest that there isn't a good product and struggle 
when their actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that 
has an upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ 
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even 
an option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a 
decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I 
requirement affects other things like increases the range of a 
product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of 
whatever you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment

Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-23 Thread Anthony Will
So does anyone out there use the Alvarion VL and willing to give real 
pricing and feature set?  I am interested in how it stacks up for a BH 
solution.


Anthony Will
Broadband Crop.

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, 
WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not 
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started 
using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU 
between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp 
protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their 
actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an 
upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ 
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an 
option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a 
decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I 
requirement affects other things like increases the range of a 
product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever 
you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a 
good WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options 
to work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango 
is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out 
and stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but 
ultimately both customers would feel the interference the majority 
of the time.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] vendor specs

2006-09-22 Thread Anthony Will
Your numbers are a bit off on the canopy and when i looked on the trango 
site it looks more in the range of $400 per unit at 30 pack pricing for 
trango's.  I believe your getting that price but at what qualities? 

I have a couple hundred in the air and I have Midwest Wireless the 5th 
largest WISP in the country playing in my back yard using Alvarions junk 
BA2 system all over the place.  And I also have a local ILEC, 
Stonebridge and the remains of Xtratyme all over the rest of my coverage 
area.  My PtmP system is all 900mhz and 2.4 ghz using omni's and I dont 
have any issues with interference.  The longest customer link I have on 
900mhz is 18.5 miles and the longest 2.4 link is 12 miles.  I use omni's 
so that I dont completely destroy the airwaves for others that are 
playing in the same sand box. 


Canopy pricing:
AP = $898  (Advantage $1554) Single pricing
CPE = $267 (Advantage $402 ) 25pack pricing  Add $40 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)
CPE = $216 (Advantage $324) 100 pack pricing Add $25 a unit for 15 mile 
range (stinger or beehive dish all FCC certified)


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.


Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this 
discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;)


This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data 
on any of these radios:


Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail
Dual polarity
10Mbps (auto up/down ratio)
Easy management (CLI and web)
$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles)

Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974)
C/I advantage
Fixed up/down ratio
$490 CPE ($737 advantage)

Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail)
36Mbps and 40,000pps
$1,000 CPE

For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over 
2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has 
worked very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop 
repeater locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, 
WISPs, etc.) within 100 yards of each other.


Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of 
radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is 
full. We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site 
survey at this location across the entire 2.4ghz band, the 
average signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :(


Travis
Microserv

Jon Langeler wrote:

Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not 
only extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started 
using canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU 
between 3 different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp 
protest that there isn't a good product and struggle when their 
actually is a pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an 
upgrade path in it's vision, it keeps getting better.


ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ 
is fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also 
suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those 
retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep 
customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable 
more often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an 
option in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a 
decent percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I 
requirement affects other things like increases the range of a 
product. I'm laying out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever 
you want...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have 
often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a 
good WISP neighbor, not because I had to.  Why fight if you can 
cooperate.  On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I.  But 
Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And 
Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets.  C/I is not nearly 
as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran 
links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably.  There 
is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real 
world usage.  The Trango just adds more polarities as more options 
to work around it, when needed.  One of the reasons we like Trango 
is its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out 
and stand our ground.  The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and 
resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS.


When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push 
the limits of the technology.  Its a LOS technology that we attempt 
NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man 
standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and 
the customer does not tolerate it.  IF a Canopy and Trango went to 
war, one might survive a little better than the other, but 
ultimately both customers would feel the interference the majority 
of the time

Re: [WISPA] Lack of Competition

2006-09-20 Thread Anthony Will
I have a $30 plan for 390K and a $40 plan for 2M, more than 80% of my 
customers are on the $30 plan because it meets their needs.  It doesn't 
matter to them that for only $10 more a month they can get 5 times the 
speed.


Actually you did that to your self.  Your 80% is dead on.  You see you 
have a basic plan, a value plan and a advanced plan.  Generally speaking 
you will have 80% of a subscriber base utilize your middle plan.  That 
is just how it works and why so many organizations offer the 3 tiered 
service.  If you wanted your customers on a say $50 plan.  You would 
create the $30 basic plan the $50 value plan and the keep up with the 
jones $75 plan.  Almost 9 times out of 10 they will go for the middle 
package if they have decided to purchase your solution.  This works if 
your selling ice cream or Internet it is a basic rule of marketing.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Sam Tetherow wrote:
Wow, if they really believe that, I wonder how they expect the 
American public to buy a car?  Gee, Ford, Chevy, GMC, KIA, Toyota, 
Subaru ...

Econo, Sedan, Van, SUV, Pickup ...
Sheesh, I guess I'll just walk to work.

Buying groceries oh Lord I'm suprised we haven't starved to death in 
the canned goods aisle trying to decide what type of tomato sauce to 
buy, roasted garlic, low salt, herb and butter ...


I can't speak for Urban areas as I don't live in one or serve one, but 
in BFE where we have 3 ISPs.  I know several people that don't have 
internet, don't have a computer and don't want one (don't know how 
they function, just saying I see it regularly).  I also know several 
people that only have dialup, and know that they pay $20/mo for dialup 
when they can get my bottom end wireless for $25/mo and not tie up 
their phone line.  They are not interested, they use it to send the 
occasional email and that is it.  I've tried marketing to them, I've 
laid it out, but they persist in not spending the extra $5 dollars.  I 
doubt they would spend an extra $2.


I have a $30 plan for 390K and a $40 plan for 2M, more than 80% of my 
customers are on the $30 plan because it meets their needs.  It 
doesn't matter to them that for only $10 more a month they can get 5 
times the speed.



Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

I can't believe that someone would be dumb enough to write this...  The
biggest problem is a lack of FEDERAL POLICY

Oh, please.   Spare us the insane idiocy...



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East 
Washington

email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net


 

The main problem seems to be the free-market telecom frenzy that has
enveloped the US (and much of its population) in technology and price
uncertainty. With no national broadband policy in place, multiple
service providers are targeting affluent urban areas, while leaving 
many

poor and rural dwellers to fend for themselves. In big cities, that
means consumers face daunting broadband choices. Should they sign a
contract with their cable provider or telco? Wait for the installation
of a Wi-Fi network? Choose an alternate provider like EarthLink? And
which broadband technology is the best? Many just stick with what they
know best: the slow but reliable telephone.




  



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] OT FYI: New position

2006-09-18 Thread Anthony Will
It will be great to have you concentrating on our industry once again 
Patrick.  You have helped bring many good things to this industry and I 
am looking forward to finally meeting you at some time in the future.


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

Patrick Leary wrote:

Having received John Scrivner's specific approval, I offer the following
note:

Dear WISPA members,

I wanted to drop you folks a note that Alvarion has challenged me to get
back to my roots, so to speak. I have asked to personally lead a renewed
focus on the WISP markets. Going forward, my energies will be full time
dedicated to this activity -- to you and your needs as operators and as
an industry. Over the past few years managing our North American
marketing team, I realized how much I missed daily interaction with
WISPs, especially meeting and getting to know you on your turf. The new
role has some wide accountability and will also allow me to again be an
active advocate for WISPs with the press, thought leaders and officials.

As part of this, we will be enacting some innovative new ideas that
among other interesting and useful benefits to help your WISP
operations, should have direct business model benefits for small WISPs.
Details will come a bit later.

I will put my 8 years worth of contacts to work and know that I look
forward to building on my existing relationships with many of you, as
well as making lots of new friends.

Finally, please feel free to e-mail me directly with ideas about how I
can help, constructive criticism, etc. regardless of whether or not you
are an Alvarion-based operator. 


Sincerely,

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...

2006-09-14 Thread Anthony Will
It looks like he is talking about the antenna ports on the mPCI card.  
There are generally two u.fl or some combo u.fl and sma, etc.  He is 
stating that if you utilize the wrong port on the card then what is 
configured you will loss 20+db of signal.  It also looks like the 
WLM54AG's have an issue where they loss some signal if you utilize the 
secondary port / b port on the card. 
FYI I have not used the WLM54AG card as of yet.  Sticking with my old 
reliable cm9's and SR5's


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.

John Scrivner wrote:
I suppose this information would be meaningful if I had any idea what 
you were talking about. Can you maybe put your thoughts into language 
people can understand who do not have intimate knowledge of the 
product you are discussing? I would really like to know what the 
differences are between the two products but I cannot understand what 
you are talking about here. Your help is appreciated.

Thanks,
Scriv

Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


After spending a lot of time working with a couple WLM54AG's,  I know
without a doubt that the main is different for a CM9 and the Compex 
radio.


You can switch to the b port, but as best I can tell, you still 
have some

loss as compared to using the main port.

In auto, the difference between the two is around 12 db, manually 
chosen
or forced to one port or the other, it appears to be well more than 
20 db

isolation between them.




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East 
Washington

email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...


Did not try the other port and the signals were lower on both ends.



Mark





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...



Did you try both antenna ports?  On the two that connected, were the
signals 12 to 14dB lower on both sides of the link?



-Hal


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Fw: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper

2006-05-02 Thread Anthony Will

what docket #???

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


fyi

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper


Thanks Marlon.  The example you cite is a real two-fer, as it also
evidences the mentality of WISPs to be good neighbors and responsible
spectrum stewards. As you know, the other side is constantly screaming
tragedy of the commons ... And claiming only licensed users can
operate efficiently.  We appreciate any examples -- and also even simple
letter comments posted into this docket, ideally prior to May 31.  We'll
circulate our concept draft comments soon.

Michael Calabrese
Vice President
New America Foundation
www.spectrumpolicy.org
202-986-2700 x327
Fax: 202-986-3696


-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:12 PM

To: Michael Calabrese
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Snider; Naveen Lakshmipathy;
wireless@wispa.org; FCC Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Stroh
Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper
Importance: High

Hi All,

We're working (again) with the New America Foundation and the Media
Access Project on some 900 MHz issues.  There is a push in place for
making at least some of the 900 band licensed.

We need some SPECIFIC examples of what people are able to do with 900
MHz that they were/are unable to do with other bands.

Here's mine:

We have a backhaul link in place to service a house on a hill
overlooking a tribal casino complex.  The casino needs internet access
in order to run credit cards, track it's Bass Reel  preferred customer
base, monitor it's fuel pumps etc.

The most direct path from my internet access to this house has just
enough trees in the way that a 2.4 GHz link would never be stable.
Unless, that is, we cranked the power up to the allowable max levels,
even though this is only a 3ish mile link.

As responsible stewards of the spectrum we decided to spend the extra
money and put in a 900 MHz system instead.  We need more time on the
link to make sure that it'll be stable long term, but so far so good.
We have plenty of signal for a 99.999% (maybe  100%) up time on that
link.  Best of all, we were able to use much LESS than the full legal
power limit to make this link work.

Please send any examples you can come up with ASAP so that everyone has
copies of them.  Please use Reply-all, don't just send them to me.

Thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Michael Calabrese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jim Snider [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Naveen Lakshmipathy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper


Marlon -
For coalition comments - and your own, I hope - we really need specific
examples of WISPs that use 900 unlic band: how do they use it? Who do
they serve? Is there something special about that frequency (duh - but
I'd emphasize this to reinforce our push for TV band and also to counter
the licensee interests saying hey, there's plenty of spectrum at 5 Ghz
...). You get the drift.  Jim will collect those - for our comments and
to share with our big company, high-tech allies who we hope to convince
to file.

BTW, don't be intimidated by 158 comments ... Those date back many
years, since licensees have pushed this before; unfortunately, since
Martin is no friend of unlicensed, we need to defend fiercely.

Thanks!

Michael Calabrese
Vice President
New America Foundation
1630 Connecticut Ave, NW 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20815
202-986-2700 x327
Fax: 202-986-3696


-Original Message-
From: FCC NPRM for UHF TV Band Unlicensed Use
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Snider
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] WISPA Whitespace possition paper

There are 158 filed comments.  I would suggest starting to slog through
them.

--Jim

J.H. Snider, Ph.D.
Research Director, Wireless Future Program New America Foundation 1630
Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202/986-2700
Fax: 202/986-3696
Web: www.newamerica.net
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Book Website: speaksoftly.jhsnider.net My Personal Blogs:
jhsnider.net/telecompolicy, jhsnider.net/citizensassembly



-Original Message-
From: FCC 

Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo BH

2006-04-26 Thread Anthony Morin
I have a Tranzeo 5a 32 link that is 19 miles. Signal levels are in the low to mid 70's and TX rates stays at 54Meg. I would consider it pretty reliable especially for the money.  chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   
 Has anyone had any experience = or – with the Tranzeo 5a 32 or the 5amp 32? The claims are 25 and 40 miles respectively. Im wondering about reliability and performance at those distances. Hit me off list if you can advise.Thanks,  Chris-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity
 Wireless  Anthony Morin  208 East Elm Street  Ambia, IN 47917  Office: (765) 869-5173  Cell: (765) 884-6009
	
		Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do.  Get it on your phone.-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund

2006-04-20 Thread Anthony Will
First of all we should all understand that USF is not going anywhere. 
Our nation’s telecommunications network is too important. Second with 
the above understanding we should try and push the legislation to 
account for the work we as WISP's are doing and allow us to contribute 
and receive funding from USF.


I reed an article about some proposed legislation that uses a reverse 
auction style for USF funding. This would allow for the most efficient 
network to receive the appropriate funding. We can in almost all cases 
implement the same or better network for less then an established Telco. 
Thus this legislation would give us the trim and fit organizations a 
competitive edge.


ABOVE ALL we need to be included in the new legislator. It should not be 
technology dependent but results dependent.


One thing to realize if this does happen that likely every Telco out 
there would start using wireless equipment to stay competitive and all 
the effects of that must be understood.


Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I talked (personally, not as WISPA) with the commerce committee 
co-chair's staff person on USF today.


What it LOOKED like was said in the conference hearing I saw (and she 
agreed that it sounded this way) was that USF had paid for the 
laptops. What really happened was that USF paid for other things 
allowing the school system to buy the laptops themselves.


In my mind this is a matter of semantics as it means that there wasn't 
as much money needed in the first place.


We had a really good talk. She said that in about two weeks they'll be 
working more in earnest on the issue. Coming up with more specific 
proposals for people to talk about.


On the white spaces issue. We talked about the ideas in our position 
paper. She didn't think that the idea that all TV spectrum should be 
open would fly. But did like the idea of using smart radios and 
allowing use now not after the DTV transition. She also seemed to 
understand the need for sub gig spectrum at higher power levels.


We'll see where it all goes.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: Dustin Jurman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund



Hey Marlon,

I like your point about the laptops, we really need to check and make 
sure
it's outside of the USF charter. I think we definitely need more 
stories of

how USF is not bringing tangible results to communities, where WISPS are
delivering service to those communities self funded.

Dustin

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund

Here's what I wrote up on USF. Several felt it's got some errors that 
need

fixing.

Feel free to fix this, toss it and start over. Anything at all.

But right now, officially, we're doing NOTHING. And that must change 
guys.

Someone needs to come up with a position paper for WISPA to work from.
Right now I've got some access to some in congress and I think we should
work with that!

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund



Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on Universal
Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for
input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, 
members

or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of the House
Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help them 
structure

legislation toward the re-working on the Universal Service Program.
Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it available to
multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in broadband as 
well

as telco.

The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the
government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of
that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government 
rarely



makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we 
need to
give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal to 
bring

broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas.

To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its
history, how it works and how it does not work. We need to develop a
strong strategy for dealing

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Anthony Will
Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time Division 
Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality it feels 
like a full duplex solution due to the timing. 


Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like to 
test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop in a 
laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps and 
1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and download 
something at the same time across that same link using the same CPE 
connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different 
story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of greater 
capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be delivered 
sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, therefore making 
more traffic available for that upcomming need. Higher capacity 
allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we find that our 
customers tend to recognize a perception of much better speed on our 
wireless links than our T1 links, because they have fewer congestion 
times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on 
a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music 
sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, 
a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning 
they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services 
to your clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable 
and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good 
thing.  And please do so, so your wireless is not identified with 
what we offer, branding high quality fiber extension and T1 
replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should be branding our service as Wi-Fiber. or Maybe 
Ethernet Internet Access  (of course like end

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

2006-04-07 Thread Anthony Will

hhhmmm  should have started that with I MAYBE am wrong here

Anthony Will wrote:

Im I wrong here because I believe a T1 line utilizes TDD (Time 
Division Duplexing)?  Thus it is a half duplex solution.  In reality 
it feels like a full duplex solution due to the timing.

Anthony

Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

If someone wants to setup whatever wireless network they would like 
to test and then let me know, I'll gladly send you a CD you can pop 
in a laptop and connect at the CPE side. It will dish out 4,000pps 
and 1.5Mbps of upload traffic. Then you can go ahead and try and 
download something at the same time across that same link using the 
same CPE connection.


If it were a telco-T1, the download would not even notice the upload. 
Wireless, being a half-duplex medium, does not compare to a 
full-duplex line. Licensed and true microwave systems are a different 
story.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

We do not see that on our network.
One provider's usage rarely has an effect on the others, that can be 
significantly noticed.
When bandwidth management is done at the first hop at every cell 
site, this does not happen.

I'm referring to using Trango 5830s.

You are however bringing up the difference between time syncronized 
circuit based apposed to Ethernet products.
With Ethernet, there is always a scale up and scale down of speed, 
based on the TCP protocol when limits are reached, but this has 
nothing to do with half or full duplex. The same degregation using 
Ethernet applies to traffic going in the same direction.
For Ethernet to be a viable repalcement for T1, it must be of 
greater capacity.


The second thing, distinguishing the difference between T1 and DSL 
classe, and which Wireless compares to, is more than just Speed and 
Duplex.


SLAs,  Repair Time, Network support, Peak Speed, etc.

the idea is that unused bandwdith can never be gone back to regain 
use of. So offering 3 mbps speed allows network usage to be 
delivered sooner, so bandwidth is free for upcomming traffic, 
therefore making more traffic available for that upcomming need. 
Higher capacity allows more efficient use of the bandwdith.  So we 
find that our customers tend to recognize a perception of much 
better speed on our wireless links than our T1 links, because they 
have fewer congestion times.


The secret is for the bandwdith management to be provided equally on 
a PRIORITY basis.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Matt,

This is not true. With a telco T1, if someone starts a 1.5Mbps 
upload, it has no effect on the download (i.e. virus traffic, music 
sharing, worms, etc.). With a wireless connection, even at 3.0Mbps, 
a 1.5Mbps upload will bring it almost to a stop.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

3Mbps half-duplex delivered using 50% time division is equivalent 
to 1.5Mbps full-duplex. The fact that many TDD radios can have 
dynamic time division makes a 3Mbps half-duplex link superior IMHO.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco 
service? How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Chris,

I agree with your finding.
But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or 
what was the finding?)
For example, its not only important to determine what terms the 
customer best recognizes and identify with, but also what 
meaning they have for those terms that they identify with.


For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that High Speed 
Internet was the term that the consumer best identified with.
However, most people identify High Speed Internet as much with 
DialUP service as they do with Broadband.
And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL 
or Cable services.  Why do we want to create the image of 
offering commodity services, design for huge over subscription, 
low repair SLAs, and best effort?


Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as 
setting standards for quality?


We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something 
better.


Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi 
services to your clients, and you are striving to be a 
competitor to Cable and DSL quality, sure Brand the product as 
DSL, and its a good thing.  And please do so, so your wireless 
is not identified with what we offer, branding high quality 
fiber extension and T1 replacement services.


In your focus group did you get any results on their perception 
of quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term 
High Speed Internet?


Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as High 
Speed Internet, since customers best identify with that term?


Maybe we should

Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]

2006-04-07 Thread Anthony Will
Well below is the copy of the apologies I sent to my congressman.  I'm 
posting it here to just give everyone some cut and paste materials NOT 
to admonish Mr. Scrivner.  You acted with best intentions at heart and 
are obviously passionate about this industry.  Thank you for your 
initiative because I likely would not have know about this legislation 
until it was to late if you would not have posted what you have.  Thanks 
again,  Anthony


Apology sent to congressman,

It seems a previous message I sent earlier this evening was not 
accurate.  After further investigation on the details of this bill I am 
in support of this legislation.  I was mistaken in the fact about it 
limiting frequency use to 6 MHz but in reality the bill opens up most 
spectrum other then those 6 MHz.  I apologize for the strong wording in 
the previous message.  As you likely can tell I am passionate about this 
issue for our rural communities and have spent the last 8 years trying 
to deliver them the much needed High speed Internet resources they need. 

Again I offer my apologizes and understanding of these issues if you 
would like to find out more about how this issue impacts farmers, other 
rural community members or more about how local small business in MN are 
approaching this issue please contact me.


Anthony Will
Broadband Solutions


John Scrivner wrote:

We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was 
wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for 
ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong 
with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am 
sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose 
of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. 
Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press 
outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to 
SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but 
apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on 
this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again 
send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the 
ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very 
sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me.

Scriv


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

*

A BILL

*

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and

expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and

other areas, and for other purposes.

//

/Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- /

//

/tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/,

**

*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. *

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband

for Communities Act’’.

2

**

*SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE *

**

*FOR WIRELESS USE. *

Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934

(47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

**

*‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM *

**

*MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. *

‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the

band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other

than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega-

Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in-

cluding wireless broadband devices.’’.

**

*SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. *

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this

Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall—

(1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in

ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate

the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made

available under section 342 of the Communications

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices,

including wireless broadband devices; and

(2) establish rules and procedures to—

(A) protect incumbent licensed services, in-

cluding broadcast television and public safety

equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses

3

from harmful interference from such unlicensed

devices;

(B) address complaints from licensed

broadcast stations that an unlicensed device

using such spectrum causes harmful inter-

ference that include verification, in the field, of

actual harmful interference;

(C) require manufacturers of unlicensed

devices designed to be operated in this spectrum

to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy

actual harmful interference to the extent that

harmful interference is found by the Commis-

sion which may include disabling or modifying

the unlicensed device remotely; and

(D) require certification of unlicensed de-

vices designed to be operated in that spectrum

to ensure that they meet the technical criteria

established under paragraph (1) and can per-

form the functions described in subparagraph

(C).

March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM

Re: [WISPA] CPE...Cat5...grounding

2006-03-27 Thread Anthony Morin
Blair,Where can I get this outdoor, shielded, flooded, cat5 with drain wire for about $80?  That is about what I'm paying now for simple outdoor rated cat5.Thanks,  Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Well, I use a outdoor, shielded, flooded, cat5 with drain wire.About $80 or so per 1000ft. The drain wire is awg 24 or so, but, it serves the purpose of bleeding off the static charge and protecting the ethernet port on the radio and the computer/router. I have had no ethernet port damage on CPE's or towers that I have used this on and I am retro-fitting my existing towers with it.I ground it to the home electrical system at the power injector when used with a CPE.It is not very pretty, but it works.Brian
 Rohrbacher wrote: Ok, I am searching for cat5 with ground wire attached. How well do you think a coax would work to ground the CPE?  http://www.computercablestore.com/detail.aspx?ID=2098 It's not like I am trying to protect it from lightning (good luck) I  just want somewhere for the static to go. I could break off the coax  at the entrance to the house and bang a 4 ft ground rod in and call it  good. Thoughts? Anyone know a cable maker who could attach a ground wire?-- Blair DavisAOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240West Michigan Wireless ISP269-686-8648A division of:Camp Communication Services, INC-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless  Anthony Morin  208 East Elm Street  Ambia, IN 47917  Office: (765) 869-5173  Cell: (765) 884-6009
		Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Water tower install pics

2006-03-21 Thread Anthony Morin
I'll snap some for you the next time I climb it.Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Anybody have pics of their water tower installs? I'm looking for both a railing mount as well as an epoxy mount if you have them. Need something to show to my local city council. Thanks in advance!!Jason Hensley, MCP+IPresident  Mozarks Technologies909 Preacher Roe BlvdWest Plains, MO
 sp;
 65775  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mozarks.com417.256.7946417.257.2415 (fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless  Anthony Morin  208 East Elm Street  Ambia, IN 47917  Office: (765) 869-5173  Cell: (765) 884-6009
		Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] COST Per Customer Analysis

2006-03-17 Thread Anthony Will
If you only have 10 - 30 customers or you have a very large network with 
little saturation, then yes that is right in the ball park but every 
customer you add spreads those cost out again.  I have found that it is 
easier to just take each customers cost to install and figure out an ROI 
per customer then other costs you put in a general expense format.  
Trying to figure out what each customer cost changes hopefully 
everyday.  Another way to look at it is by tower or POP location so that 
you can work to make each POP profitable before deploying another.  
Saturation of resources is key in this industry. 


Anthony
Broadband Solutions

Mark Nash wrote:


My partner has done some quick analysis at COST PER CUSTOMER.  This does not
include CPE hardware or one-time purchases...just monthly expenses that must
be covered by revenue from our customers.  Items like fuel, insurance, tower
leases, bandwidth, billing  administration, support costs, cell phones,
etc.  He came up with about $37 COST per subscriber.

I'm not really interested in how much we charge at this point...just coming
up with a valid calculation of COST.

Does $37 per subscriber seem right?  I think it's high (I've only given it
about 15 minutes worth of thought).

This is something, of course, that everyone should be looking at, so I think
some discussion would be helpful.

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax


 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Systems

2006-02-19 Thread Anthony Morin
I'm pretty sure it has an integrated antenna and an external connector both.  Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Is that moto gear integrated?Anthony Morin wrote: I was told $290 for 900 gear by trango and it might be out by the  middle to end of April.  Double radius told me 212.50 for Moto 900 cpe available by the end of  March.  Guess we'll have to wait and see. */Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Tranzeo announced at EC-Expo that they will have a 900mhz CPE/AP combination available sometime in the second quarter of 2006. They are currently beta testing on their own systems in Canada right now. Didn't hear a price quote, but knowing how efficient 
 Tranzeo
 is, I'm guessing it will be under $350 in 20 pack quantities. FWIW, I heard several reports from different people that the SR9 miniPCI 900mhz card is vaporware, and it is going to be six months or more before it will be readily available. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Rohrbacher wrote:  Read the title of the thread, (hint, hint) :) Wishful thinking, but  no. No 900mhz $150 CPE.   Jeff Sullivan wrote:   Brian Rohrbacher wrote:   but that sub $300 CPE that a Trango told me about last August never  showed up. So I guess I move on   Brian   It did. Only at $150!!!--  WISPA Wi
 reless
 List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ *Velocity Wireless* Anthony Morin 208 East Elm Street Ambia, IN 47917 (765) 869-5173  What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos  -- Brian RohrbacherReliable Internet, LLCwww.reliableinter.netCell 269-838-8338"Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless
Anthony Morin
208 East Elm Street
Ambia, IN 47917
(765) 869-5173
		Relax. Yahoo! Mail 
virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] CB3 to Tranzeo 6000

2006-02-15 Thread Anthony Morin
Is it a CB3 deluxe? I couldn't get the older CB3's to connect either.Does the 6000 have the latest firmware?Jason Hensley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Anyone have a pointer with this? I can't get it to connect correctly as just a bridge - I've had to enable WDS on the 6000. But, when I enable WDS, all other clients on the 6000 drop and can't get access, even though they are shown as associated.CB3 is about 150yards away and works great, but it's the only thing working.Any help on this would be GREATLY appreciated-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless
Anthony Morin
208 East Elm Street
Ambia, IN 47917
(765) 869-5173
		  
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo CPQ Opinions

2006-02-13 Thread Anthony Morin
Yeah, I got one back from RMA last week that had build 99 on it and it wouldn't link for anything. Tech guy didn't even know 99 was out. I held an 89r right next to it and it linked right up. I have to give credit to them though they shipped me a new unit the next business day.Thumbs up to Tranzeo though on the 2.0.1 build for the tr-6000's and tr5-a's, big improvements.Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  ***WARNING WILL ROBINSON You better steer clear of any updates on those Tranzeo APs over build 86r WARNING YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED :-)Mac DearmanMaximum Access, LLC.Authorized Barracuda ResellerMikroTik RouterOS Certifiedwww.inetsouth.comwww.mac-tel.uswww.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)Rayville, La.318.728.8600
 318.303.4227318.303.4229Mark Nash wrote: I've been using them for about a month now for a couple of smaller  sectors. Had stability problems with the AP's that I was using (YDI  AP-Plus w/Turbocell, operating as an 802.11b AP). I then installed  Tranzeo AP's. I had issues with them not reconnecting to the AP when  the AP was power-cycled. Updated firmware on AP's  clients. Been  running stable for about a week. Now I have purchased another 10-pack.  The AP's web interface really cleaned up  gave me client names on the  station list with the latest firmware.  I can't give you long-term statistics, nor can I answer your huge  PPPoE question. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998-
 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - *From:* JohnnyO <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2006 9:52 AM *Subject:* [WISPA] Tranzeo CPQ Opinions We will be doing a large deployment of CPEs in the next 60-90days. I would like to hear all of the negatives or issues people are seeing with the Tranzeo CPQ line. A huge question I have is will it act as a PPPoE client ? Any and all comments are helpful, Thanks ! JohnnyO  --  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA
 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless
Anthony Morin
208 East Elm Street
Ambia, IN 47917
(765) 869-5173
		  
What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 900b mhz omni

2006-01-25 Thread Anthony Morin
I'll be in the market for one of these too.  I've heard that Pac Wireless makes a good one.  Anyone know of other high quality 900MHz omni in H-pol?  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Anybody know where i can find an H-pol 900 mhz omni w/ higer gain than 9Db?thanks, chris-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/  Velocity Wireless
Anthony Morin
208 East Elm Street
Ambia, IN 47917
(765) 869-5173
		Do you Yahoo!? 
With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

2006-01-20 Thread Anthony Will
There are several 3rd party solutions to this I would look at 
www.lastmilegear.com they have the cyclone solution for 120* and omni 
antenna


Anthony

Kurt Fankhauser wrote:


   Trango Introduces New $149 WISP Subscriber Unit


 /- Lowest priced fixed wireless modem available -/

*SAN DIEGO, CA - January 18, 2006* - Trango Broadband Wireless, the 
leader in fixed broadband wNo, time to break out the soldering iron.


Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
114 S. Walnut St.
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Thomas
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!

Do they have any AP's with wider than 60 degree beams?

John
   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] FCC regs question

2006-01-02 Thread Anthony Will
This only applies to the 2.4ghz ISM band there are different rules for 
the 900mhz and 5.8 ISM band plus different rules for the UNII rules.


The ISM rules state, 900mhz is a total of 36dbm EIRP no mater if it is 
multi point or PtP.  5.8ghz is 1 watt power and as large a antenna you 
can put on it for PtP and 36dbm total EIRP for multi point.


This is how I understand the rules.  You are not technically allowed to 
swap out other manufacture antenna's only allowed to use lower gain 
antenna from the same manufacture this is of the same basic type that 
has the type acceptance registered with the FCC for any given radio 
transmitter.  For example if a pacwireless 18dbi flat panel is 
registered you can use any flat panel from pacwireless that is 18dbi or 
less in gain.  Now there has been a lot of unofficial statements by 
members of the FCC that have stated twists or bends in the antenna 
selection part of the rulings but I have yet to see anything that states 
otherwise on a official document.


Anthony


Tom DeReggi wrote:


Its spelled out towards the end of the document.

30 db max radio power + 6 db antenna. PTP 3 to 1 rule applies, to use 
use much larger antennas at CPE side, and every 3 db antenna gain, 
minus 1 db radio gain at CPE side.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC regs question



List,

Can anyone tell me what the current FCC regs are regarding EIRP?  
When choosing an antenna radio combo are we limited to the maximum 
antenna gain that has been approved for use with that particular 
radio?  If so, it eliminates the Super Range 2 radio for me since 
it's approved for use with only a 2 dBi antenna.  Or are we limited 
to the calculated EIRP (the -1 dB for each 3dBi above 6dBi 
algorithm), which, would allow the use of a 16 dBi antenna with this 
radio?  I have read and read and it seems that this is very open to 
personal interpretation.  Also it's difficult to determine what the 
latest ruling is.


Jason Wallace

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] ezlinx.net SPAM

2005-11-24 Thread Anthony Will
um you spamed me.  I have never had dealings with your company and I 
have received unsolicited email from your company.  That is SPAM.


Anthony
Ruralnet Inc.

Jack Weinberg wrote:


Hello List,

My name is Jack Weinberg I am the president of Ezlinx.net.  We do NOT SPAM 
anyone.  We do make cold calls to WISPS to tell them of our services.  We DO 
NOT repair waverider. We are a legitimate company offering repair and selling 
refurbed equipment that has been tested with a warranty.   We do not keep the 
units we do not fix, we return them so the customer has a full accounting of 
their units sent in for repair.

If anyone has any issues with our company please feel free to contact me 
directly.


Jack Weinberg, President
69 Public Square , 14th Floor
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
570-823-9804
1-866-439-5469
Fax 570-823-9867
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

http:// www.ezlinx.net http://www.ezlinx.net 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Pete Davis. NoDial.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ezlinx.net SPAM


I got the same one email. I also get hit with cold calls for people 
wanting to fix my radios. I don't know if they are the same company, or 
a different scam. The call center making the calls doesn't seem to know 
much, but they REALLY want you to send them broken radios.


Them: Do you have any broken out of warranty Tranzeo (or transio) radios?
Me: No. I don't use Tranzeo
Them: We fix all major brands. What kind of wireless CPE do you use?
Me: Waverider. Do you fix Waverider?
Them: Let me check.. yeah, we fix them.
Me: How much.
Them: uh... does $275 sound right?
Me: Have you ever fixed one? We can buy new ones for about $250 in 
quantity.

Them: Oh yeah... we fix them all the time How many do you have?
Me: About 25
Them: Well if you send them in, we will send back half of the ones we 
fix for no charge.

Me: What do you do with the ones you can't fix?
Them: We keep them for spare parts.
Me: I see. Does your lab have a CCU to test signal level sensitivity with?
Them: Oh yeah, we have all kinds of meters and osciloscopes, and stuff.
Me: Do you know what a CCU is?
Them: uh... let me check. hold on
(long pause)
Them: did we give you the address to send the equipment to?
Me: What equipment?
Them: the Wave equipment.
Me: Should I send the EUM's, the SPK's, or the GLD's. Can you fix all of 
those models? (I made up the last two)

Them: Oh yeah. We fix all of those.
Me: I will let you know.

Someone posted recently on how their CPE serial numbers that they sent 
in for repair showed up on ebay. I am not sure these repair shops 
spammers aren't fronts for ebay shops, but if they do a lot of fix and 
send back half work, they could have a lot of excess refirb equipment 
legitimately. I am just leary of anyone who can fix anything but 
doesn't know what it is.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net.


Reliable Internet, LLC wrote:

 

Do all you guys get this crap from them about once a week?  I have 
asked several times to be removed from their spam list.  Did they 
harvest this list or p-15?


Today I responded asking about how they fix these Transio they talk 
about.  LOL!  Stupid spammers can't even spell what they fix.  :)  I 
hate spam.


 Original Message 
Subject:we fix transio, trango, motorola, alvarion equipment
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:38:21 -0500 (EST)
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  Jan Weinberg
  ezlinx
  1-866-439-5469




My name is Jan and I am with ezlinx.net.  We sell refurbished
equipment-if you are interested most of our inventory can be viewed at
store.ezlinx.net. our phone is 1-866-439-5469.  Please ask for Jan
Weinberg.

Also, we fix any broken or dead units that you may have
around-particularly alvarion, transio, trango, motorola.  We do not charge
you a dollar fee-you ship us your equipment, we fix as much as we can and
then ship you back one half of all that we repair.  In other words, the
only cost to you is the shipping.

We also sell refurbished equipment and purchase any working or non working
units you may have around.

Looking forward to doing business with you.

Please feel free to contact me at 1-866-439-5469.  If I am not in please
ask for Jack.



Jan Weinberg
ezlinx.net































--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 11/20/2005




   



 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Another Problem LAN

2005-10-31 Thread Anthony Morin
I would get rid of the linksys router.Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To All,I have another problem. I have a customer with about 10 PC's on a LAN. My config is as follows: Mikrotik Router- sB APPO - sB aBO - to ethernet switch- to -Trango 900 AP - Trango 900SU - (customer Equip) Linksys DSL/Cable Firewall Router 192.168.10.nn on Wireless side, 192.168.5.5 on LAN side. Router is providing DHCP on LAN side to a 16 port Ethernet Switch, and about 10 PC's connected.This works fine for a while then drops the connection. When i check the 900SU its fine, but no traffic through the router. I reboot the router, no go. I reconfig the router by the book and it comes back on line and will work for 1 - 6 weeks, then drops again.What would you all suggest? I am about to lose this customer back to DSL because its very frustrating for them. They don't want to go.I have simi
 lar
 setups using the smartbridges and tranzeo radios with no issues, for 6 months, that is as long as the WISP has been up.Any assistance will be appreciated.Ron WallaceHahnron, Inc.220 S. Jackson St.Addison, MI 49220Phone: (517) 547-8410Mobile: (517) 605-4542e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/Velocity Wireless
Anthony Morin
208 East Elm Street
Ambia, IN 47917
(765) 869-5173
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 -- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] I need 100% participation RIGHT NOW! This means YOU!

2005-09-29 Thread Anthony Will




The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
Anthony Will
…and Thank You for Your Comments



  

   Your Confirmation Number is:
   '2005929725855 '  

  


  

  Date Received:
  Sep 29 2005 


  Docket:
  04-186 




  Number of Files Transmitted: 
  1

  


Anthony Will
Ruralnet Inc.

John Scrivner wrote:

Here is my confirmation:
  
  
*The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
  
John Scrivner - Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
  
…and Thank You for Your Comments*
  
  
* Your Confirmation Number is: * '2005928723564 ' **
  
  
*Date Received:* *Sep 28 2005 *
  
*Docket:* *04-186 *
  
*Number of Files Transmitted: * *1*
  




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] RE: [Emergency-Relief] update from La.

2005-09-05 Thread Anthony Clendenen
Mac,
My employer has preliminarily approved about 20 laptops to be donated
for use at the shelters, when I get to the office tomorrow I will find
out for sure.  I would like to go into the conversation with some actual
requests and where they will go instead of just estimates.  This gives
them some more idea that their donations will be well used.  

If you have time please let me know what type of equipment and the
number of units, the current plans are for the SoCal team to leave
Wednesday morning and to bring about 20 laptops.  But I can ask for what
ever is needed, printers, hubs, monitors, chairs, of course it all has
to fit as well.  Please also include as much information about the needs
of the different shelters so I can include that information as well.

Also if you would be available for a phone call tomorrow incase they
have more questions let me know how to contact you.

Regards,
Anthony
 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Anthony ClendenenESRI, Inc.
 Systems Group380 New York St.
 909.793.2853 1-1288 Redlands, CA  92373
 909.379.8934 [C]  http://www.esri.com
 909.213.9211 [P]  
 909.798.2090 [F]
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Emergency-Relief] update from La.

Good evening list,

 I thought I would give you all an update on whats going on here. 
Jim Patient (ST. Louis, Mo.   www.jefcosoho.com.), myself and Steve
Milton
 (Seattle, Wawww.isomedia.com)  have connected two more shelters 
with High speed Internet and VOIP phones as well as PCs that will enable

them to fill out their FEMA, RedCross and unemployment applications  as 
well as assist in finding their lost family and friends.

   I will fill out the form that Bullit has requested of me and would 
have done that before now, but I just havent had time. We just walked in

the door here at my home 20 minutes ago and had the first hot meal in 
two days. I appreciate anything that any of you have done/will do for 
anyone in Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas as they to are over burdened 
with evacuees.

   I have been overwhelmed with the amount of help that is headed this 
way. I won't turn down any help until we get these shelters up to speed.

It seems that the shelters have heard that we are doing this and they 
are absolutely popping up out of the wood work. We had a call from 3 
shelters in Tallulah, La. this evening with one housing 127 evacuees and

had several more whole families on the way. I know that there is a crew 
coming out of (5)Chicago, a crew from Atlanta(7 men) some folks from 
Indianapolis, and (5?) from Southern California. When we get these 
shelters in the surrounding Parishes connected I will have completed 
scouting out shelters further to the south in need of connectivity and 
VOIP until we are out of gear or NOLA is opened up and/or Part15 takes 
the lead and sends us elsewhere.

 I have staff here in the office (Sharon) that is coordinating our 
efforts and fielding calls if anyone has any further questions. Please 
feel free to call.

  There is plenty to be done and all these men headed this way are 
really wanting to wade out in the water and get their feet wet. It 
will put them a little closer to the action and in a good position when 
the call comes from Part-15.  I am glad to have all the help and all the

gear to make things a little easier on these folks.


Now - - I will fill out that paper work and have another cold brewskie
:-)

Thanks Men,
Mac Dearman
www.inetsouth.com
728-8600






Bullit wrote:

 Paul
  
 Please don't take this wrong, but some of the delay in sending out P15

 support teams is because I no longer have a handle on how much support

 MAC Dearman now needs because of all those people taking the inititive

 to go there on their own.
  
 I have asked Mac and others close to him to please complete the P15 
 form about shelter locations needing assistance. Other than a few 
 comments passing around on different lists, we still do not have a 
 clear picture of what Mac needs and what he has too much of.
  
 stumpted grin You guys are sure making it harder for me to get the 
 help deployed.
  
 Good luck and I hope you can provide meaning support to those in need.

 If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask.
  
 Michael
  
  

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Paul Smith mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2005 5:58 PM
 *Subject:* [Emergency-Relief] Community wireless networking
 advance team about to leave Chicago

 Hi everyone,

 I just wanted to let folks know I'll be hitting the road in a
 minivan with my colleague Rogers Wilson from Chicago heading for
 Mac Dearman's